Connectivity differences in brain networks
Highlights
► Methods are presented for identifying connectivity differences in brain networks. ► One method (NBS) is suited to effects spanning many interconnected brain regions. ► Other method (SPC) is suited to effects confined to isolated pairs of brain regions. ► Utility of NBS and SPC demonstrated with electroencephalography data.
Introduction
There has been a shift in imaging neuroscience from brain activation to brain connectivity (Friston, 2009, Sporns, in press). Central to this shift in focus has been an emphasis on studying large-scale brain networks composed of nodes and connections (Bullmore and Sporns, 2009, Habeck and Moeller, 2011, He and Evans, 2010, Kaiser, 2011, Sporns, 2011, Wig et al., 2011). Nodes represent brain regions and the connections formed between pairs of nodes represent some measure of interaction between them, as inferred from neuroimaging data (Rubinov and Sporns, 2011).
Brain networks have been found to exhibit various nontrivial topological features, such as small-world organization, modular structure and highly connected hubs (Achard et al., 2006, Bassett and Bullmore, 2006, Hagmann et al., 2008, van den Heuvel et al., 2008). The goal of numerous studies has been to elucidate differences in these topological properties over developmental stages (Fair et al., 2009), in clinical conditions (e.g. Lynall et al., 2011, He et al., 2008, van den Heuvel et al., 2010) and in relation to different experimental conditions and cognitive states (e.g. Bassett et al., 2011, Fornito et al., 2011a, Kitzbichler et al., 2011) as well as genetic influences (Fornito et al., 2011b).
The interpretation of topological differences found in brain networks is not always straightforward, however. Topological properties derived from the characteristic path length in functional brain networks (Wang et al., 2010) are particularly difficult to interpret because functional networks are intrinsically fully connected. Therefore, the “path length” between a pair of regions is already explicitly captured by the strength of the direct connection (Rubinov and Sporns, 2010). Negative functional connections complicate the interpretation of path length as well (Chen et al., 2011).
Furthermore, topological differences can in some circumstances be a complex manifestation of simple differences in connectivity strength. Steps taken to disambiguate topological differences from simple differences in connectivity strength are equivocal and typically require the selection of arbitrary thresholds to transform connectivity strength from a continuous to a binary scale (Ginestet et al., 2011, van Wijk et al., 2010) (see Fig. 1).
Elucidating differences in the strength of connectivity is therefore an important undertaking in and of itself. Differences in connectivity strength are more basic than topological differences and as such are more straightforward to interpret.
This article considers exploratory methods for assessing the evidence of an experimental effect at each of the typically thousands of connections comprising a brain network. The experimental effect may be, for example, an association between connectivity strength and diagnostic status in a case-control study or contextual changes during performance of a cognitive task (Bressler and Menon, 2010).
The scenario considered is one in which connectivity is measured between every pair of many distinct brain regions. Connectivity includes anatomical connectivity inferred from fiber tracking methods (Bassett et al., 2010, Li et al., in press) and cortical thickness/volume estimates (Bassett et al., 2008, He et al., 2007) as well as functional connectivity inferred from functional imaging (van den Heuvel and Hulshoff Pol, 2010) or electromagnetic tomography (Schoffelen and Gross, 2011). To enable inferential statistics, the same connectivity measurements are repeated for each subject comprising a case-control study or in the same subject during different experimental conditions. A univariate model is then independently fitted to each connection to assess the evidence of an experimental effect. This involves computing a test statistic and corresponding p-value for the contrast of interest.
The total number of connections is typically in the thousands. Control of Type I errors among all connections is therefore essential. The network-based statistic (NBS) (Zalesky et al., 2010a) and spatial pairwise clustering (SPC) (Hipp et al., 2011, Zalesky et al., in press) are two distinct methods that have been used to control family-wise errors when assessing the evidence for an experimental effect with mass univariate testing. The family-wise error rate refers to the likelihood of committing one or more Type I errors among all connections (Nichols and Hayasaka, 2003).
The basic principle of the NBS and SPC is the same as supra-threshold voxel clustering in traditional task-based functional-MRI activation studies (Bullmore et al., 1999, Nichols and Holmes, 2001). Whereas voxel clustering pertains to mass univariate testing of brain activation, the NBS and SPC pertain to mass univariate testing of brain connectivity. Unlike voxel clustering, where the definition of a voxel cluster is unambiguous, ‘clusters’ formed among supra-threshold connections can be defined in different ways. The only obvious way to form voxel clusters is to cluster supra-threshold voxels that share at least one common face, edge or corner. Supra-threshold voxels refers to voxels having a test statistic that exceeds a chosen cluster-forming threshold.
In contrast, there is not one obvious way to form ‘clusters’ among supra-threshold connections. The NBS defines clusters using the graph theoretical concept of connected components. SPC on the other hand uses a more stringent pairwise clustering concept. With the development of these two complimentary methods, experimenters face a choice: NBS or SPC?
This choice is addressed by comparing the pros and cons of the NBS and SPC, providing some guidelines on their practical use and demonstrating their utility using a case study involving connectivity measurements inferred from electroencephalography data. Note that the NBS is freely available as part of the Brain Connectivity Toolbox (http://www.brain-connectivity-toolbox.net/) and Connectome Mapping Toolkit (http://www.connectomics.org).
Section snippets
Methods
Assume brain connectivity is measured between every pair of N distinct brain regions. To assess the evidence for an experimental effect, a univariate model is independently fitted to each connection and a test statistic is computed for the contrast of interest (e.g. F-statistic, t-statistic). Each connection is therefore endowed with a test statistic and corresponding uncorrected p-value.
A typical value of N is 90 (Zalesky et al., 2010b), in which case the total number of connections is N(N − 1)/2
Application
Electroencephalographic activity was recorded at 160 scalp electrodes in 11 healthy volunteers. Each volunteer performed a visual proximity task under different working memory load conditions: no load, low load and high load (Cocchi et al., 2011). Data were band-pass filtered from 0.1 to 40 Hz. Sources were estimated using a distributed linear inverse solution (ELECTRA) applying the local autoregressive average (LAURA) regularization approach to address the non-uniqueness of the inverse problem (
Discussion
Whereas supra-threshold voxel clustering (Bullmore et al., 1999, Nichols and Holmes, 2001) pertains to mass univariate testing of brain activation, the network-based statistic (NBS) and spatial pairwise clustering (SPC) are analogous methods enabling mass univariate testing of brain connectivity. More specifically, the NBS and SPC are clustering strategies to control family-wise errors, in the weak sense, when assessing the evidence for an experimental effect at each of the typically thousands
Acknowledgments
We are very grateful to Professor Olaf Sporns and Dr Stephan Gerhard for adding the NBS to the Brain Connectivity Toolbox and the Connectome Mapping Toolkit, respectively.
A.Z. is grateful for the support provided by Professor Trevor Kilpatrick as part of the inaugural Melbourne Neuroscience Institute Fellowship. This work was also supported by the Australian Research Council [DP0986320 to A.Z.], the Melbourne Neuroscience Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
References (62)
Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization of the frontal lobes
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2008)- et al.
Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2010) - et al.
Working memory load improves early stages of independent visual processing
Neuropsychologia
(2011) - et al.
Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved FMRI
Neuron
(2006) - et al.
General and specific functional connectivity disturbances in first episode schizophrenia during cognitive control performance
Biol. Psychiatry
(2011) - et al.
Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate
Neuroimage
(2002) - et al.
Comparison of characteristics between region- and voxel-based network analyses in resting-state fMRI data
Neuroimage
(2010) - et al.
Combining voxel intensity and cluster extent with permutation test framework
Neuroimage
(2004) - et al.
Oscillatory synchronization in large-scale cortical networks predicts perception
Neuron
(2011) A tutorial in connectome analysis: topological and spatial features of brain networks
Neuroimage
(2011)
Nonparametric statistical testing EEG- and MEG-data
J. Neurosci. Methods
Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency
Clin. Neurophysiol.
The effect of non-visual working memory load on top-down modulation of visual processing
Neuropsychologia
Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretation
Neuroimage
Weight-conserving characterization of complex functional brain networks
Neuroimage
Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference
Neuroimage
Exploring the brain network: a review on resting-state fMRI functional connectivity
Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol.
Small-world and scale-free organization of voxel-based resting-state functional connectivity in the human brain
Neuroimage
Network-based statistic: identifying differences in brain networks
Neuroimage
Whole-brain anatomical networks: does the choice of nodes matter?
Neuroimage
Disrupted axonal fiber connectivity in schizophrenia
Biol. Psychiatry
Disrupted brain connectivity networks in drug-naive, first-episode major depressive disorder
Biol. Psychiatry
A resilient, low-frequency, small-world human brain functional network with highly connected association cortical hubs
J. Neurosci.
Small-world brain networks
Neuroscientist
Hierarchical organization of human cortical networks in health and schizophrenia
J. Neurosci.
Conserved and variable architecture of human white matter connectivity
Neuroimage
Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Complex brain networks: graph-theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems
Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
Global, voxel, and cluster tests, by theory and permutation, for a difference between two groups of structural MR images of the brain
IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging
Negative functional connectivity and its dependence on the shortest path length of positive network in the resting-state human brain
Brain Connect.
Functional brain networks develop from a “local to distributed” organization
PLoS Comput. Biol.
Cited by (208)
Impact of hypomanic personality traits on brain functional connectivity during a dynamic theory-of-mind task
2024, Psychiatry Research - NeuroimagingStratifying ASD and characterizing the functional connectivity of subtypes in resting-state fMRI
2023, Behavioural Brain ResearchAltered electroencephalography resting state network coherence in remitted MDD
2023, Brain ResearchStatistical power in network neuroscience
2023, Trends in Cognitive SciencesAltered white matter functional network in nicotine addiction
2023, Psychiatry ResearchNetwork comparisons and their applications in connectomics
2023, Connectome Analysis: Characterization, Methods, and Analysis