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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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