Cargando…
Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior
Resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) is widely used to predict behavioral measures. To predict behavioral measures, representing RSFC with parcellations and gradients are the two most popular approaches. Here, we compare parcellation and gradient approaches for RSFC-based prediction of a bro...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192836/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36940760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120044 |
_version_ | 1785043711776784384 |
---|---|
author | Kong, Ru Tan, Yan Rui Wulan, Naren Ooi, Leon Qi Rong Farahibozorg, Seyedeh-Rezvan Harrison, Samuel Bijsterbosch, Janine D. Bernhardt, Boris C. Eickhoff, Simon Yeo, B.T. Thomas |
author_facet | Kong, Ru Tan, Yan Rui Wulan, Naren Ooi, Leon Qi Rong Farahibozorg, Seyedeh-Rezvan Harrison, Samuel Bijsterbosch, Janine D. Bernhardt, Boris C. Eickhoff, Simon Yeo, B.T. Thomas |
author_sort | Kong, Ru |
collection | PubMed |
description | Resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) is widely used to predict behavioral measures. To predict behavioral measures, representing RSFC with parcellations and gradients are the two most popular approaches. Here, we compare parcellation and gradient approaches for RSFC-based prediction of a broad range of behavioral measures in the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) datasets. Among the parcellation approaches, we consider group-average “hard” parcellations (Schaefer et al., 2018), individual-specific “hard” parcellations (Kong et al., 2021a), and an individual-specific “soft” parcellation (spatial independent component analysis with dual regression; Beckmann et al., 2009). For gradient approaches, we consider the well-known principal gradients (Margulies et al., 2016) and the local gradient approach that detects local RSFC changes (Laumann et al., 2015). Across two regression algorithms, individual-specific hard-parcellation performs the best in the HCP dataset, while the principal gradients, spatial independent component analysis and group-average “hard” parcellations exhibit similar performance. On the other hand, principal gradients and all parcellation approaches perform similarly in the ABCD dataset. Across both datasets, local gradients perform the worst. Finally, we find that the principal gradient approach requires at least 40 to 60 gradients to perform as well as parcellation approaches. While most principal gradient studies utilize a single gradient, our results suggest that incorporating higher order gradients can provide significant behaviorally relevant information. Future work will consider the inclusion of additional parcellation and gradient approaches for comparison. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10192836 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101928362023-06-01 Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior Kong, Ru Tan, Yan Rui Wulan, Naren Ooi, Leon Qi Rong Farahibozorg, Seyedeh-Rezvan Harrison, Samuel Bijsterbosch, Janine D. Bernhardt, Boris C. Eickhoff, Simon Yeo, B.T. Thomas Neuroimage Article Resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) is widely used to predict behavioral measures. To predict behavioral measures, representing RSFC with parcellations and gradients are the two most popular approaches. Here, we compare parcellation and gradient approaches for RSFC-based prediction of a broad range of behavioral measures in the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) datasets. Among the parcellation approaches, we consider group-average “hard” parcellations (Schaefer et al., 2018), individual-specific “hard” parcellations (Kong et al., 2021a), and an individual-specific “soft” parcellation (spatial independent component analysis with dual regression; Beckmann et al., 2009). For gradient approaches, we consider the well-known principal gradients (Margulies et al., 2016) and the local gradient approach that detects local RSFC changes (Laumann et al., 2015). Across two regression algorithms, individual-specific hard-parcellation performs the best in the HCP dataset, while the principal gradients, spatial independent component analysis and group-average “hard” parcellations exhibit similar performance. On the other hand, principal gradients and all parcellation approaches perform similarly in the ABCD dataset. Across both datasets, local gradients perform the worst. Finally, we find that the principal gradient approach requires at least 40 to 60 gradients to perform as well as parcellation approaches. While most principal gradient studies utilize a single gradient, our results suggest that incorporating higher order gradients can provide significant behaviorally relevant information. Future work will consider the inclusion of additional parcellation and gradient approaches for comparison. 2023-06 2023-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10192836/ /pubmed/36940760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120044 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ) |
spellingShingle | Article Kong, Ru Tan, Yan Rui Wulan, Naren Ooi, Leon Qi Rong Farahibozorg, Seyedeh-Rezvan Harrison, Samuel Bijsterbosch, Janine D. Bernhardt, Boris C. Eickhoff, Simon Yeo, B.T. Thomas Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior |
title | Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior |
title_full | Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior |
title_fullStr | Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior |
title_short | Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior |
title_sort | comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192836/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36940760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120044 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kongru comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT tanyanrui comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT wulannaren comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT ooileonqirong comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT farahibozorgseyedehrezvan comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT harrisonsamuel comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT bijsterboschjanined comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT bernhardtborisc comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT eickhoffsimon comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior AT yeobtthomas comparisonbetweengradientsandparcellationsforfunctionalconnectivitypredictionofbehavior |