Cargando…

Defining nodes in complex brain networks

Network science holds great promise for expanding our understanding of the human brain in health, disease, development, and aging. Network analyses are quickly becoming the method of choice for analyzing functional MRI data. However, many technical issues have yet to be confronted in order to optimi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stanley, Matthew L., Moussa, Malaak N., Paolini, Brielle M., Lyday, Robert G., Burdette, Jonathan H., Laurienti, Paul J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837224/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24319426
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2013.00169
_version_ 1782292412402499584
author Stanley, Matthew L.
Moussa, Malaak N.
Paolini, Brielle M.
Lyday, Robert G.
Burdette, Jonathan H.
Laurienti, Paul J.
author_facet Stanley, Matthew L.
Moussa, Malaak N.
Paolini, Brielle M.
Lyday, Robert G.
Burdette, Jonathan H.
Laurienti, Paul J.
author_sort Stanley, Matthew L.
collection PubMed
description Network science holds great promise for expanding our understanding of the human brain in health, disease, development, and aging. Network analyses are quickly becoming the method of choice for analyzing functional MRI data. However, many technical issues have yet to be confronted in order to optimize results. One particular issue that remains controversial in functional brain network analyses is the definition of a network node. In functional brain networks a node represents some predefined collection of brain tissue, and an edge measures the functional connectivity between pairs of nodes. The characteristics of a node, chosen by the researcher, vary considerably in the literature. This manuscript reviews the current state of the art based on published manuscripts and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of three main methods for defining nodes. Voxel-wise networks are constructed by assigning a node to each, equally sized brain area (voxel). The fMRI time-series recorded from each voxel is then used to create the functional network. Anatomical methods utilize atlases to define the nodes based on brain structure. The fMRI time-series from all voxels within the anatomical area are averaged and subsequently used to generate the network. Functional activation methods rely on data from traditional fMRI activation studies, often from databases, to identify network nodes. Such methods identify the peaks or centers of mass from activation maps to determine the location of the nodes. Small (~10–20 millimeter diameter) spheres located at the coordinates of the activation foci are then applied to the data being used in the network analysis. The fMRI time-series from all voxels in the sphere are then averaged, and the resultant time series is used to generate the network. We attempt to clarify the discussion and move the study of complex brain networks forward. While the “correct” method to be used remains an open, possibly unsolvable question that deserves extensive debate and research, we argue that the best method available at the current time is the voxel-wise method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3837224
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38372242013-12-06 Defining nodes in complex brain networks Stanley, Matthew L. Moussa, Malaak N. Paolini, Brielle M. Lyday, Robert G. Burdette, Jonathan H. Laurienti, Paul J. Front Comput Neurosci Neuroscience Network science holds great promise for expanding our understanding of the human brain in health, disease, development, and aging. Network analyses are quickly becoming the method of choice for analyzing functional MRI data. However, many technical issues have yet to be confronted in order to optimize results. One particular issue that remains controversial in functional brain network analyses is the definition of a network node. In functional brain networks a node represents some predefined collection of brain tissue, and an edge measures the functional connectivity between pairs of nodes. The characteristics of a node, chosen by the researcher, vary considerably in the literature. This manuscript reviews the current state of the art based on published manuscripts and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of three main methods for defining nodes. Voxel-wise networks are constructed by assigning a node to each, equally sized brain area (voxel). The fMRI time-series recorded from each voxel is then used to create the functional network. Anatomical methods utilize atlases to define the nodes based on brain structure. The fMRI time-series from all voxels within the anatomical area are averaged and subsequently used to generate the network. Functional activation methods rely on data from traditional fMRI activation studies, often from databases, to identify network nodes. Such methods identify the peaks or centers of mass from activation maps to determine the location of the nodes. Small (~10–20 millimeter diameter) spheres located at the coordinates of the activation foci are then applied to the data being used in the network analysis. The fMRI time-series from all voxels in the sphere are then averaged, and the resultant time series is used to generate the network. We attempt to clarify the discussion and move the study of complex brain networks forward. While the “correct” method to be used remains an open, possibly unsolvable question that deserves extensive debate and research, we argue that the best method available at the current time is the voxel-wise method. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3837224/ /pubmed/24319426 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2013.00169 Text en Copyright © 2013 Stanley, Moussa, Paolini, Lyday, Burdette and Laurienti. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Stanley, Matthew L.
Moussa, Malaak N.
Paolini, Brielle M.
Lyday, Robert G.
Burdette, Jonathan H.
Laurienti, Paul J.
Defining nodes in complex brain networks
title Defining nodes in complex brain networks
title_full Defining nodes in complex brain networks
title_fullStr Defining nodes in complex brain networks
title_full_unstemmed Defining nodes in complex brain networks
title_short Defining nodes in complex brain networks
title_sort defining nodes in complex brain networks
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837224/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24319426
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2013.00169
work_keys_str_mv AT stanleymatthewl definingnodesincomplexbrainnetworks
AT moussamalaakn definingnodesincomplexbrainnetworks
AT paolinibriellem definingnodesincomplexbrainnetworks
AT lydayrobertg definingnodesincomplexbrainnetworks
AT burdettejonathanh definingnodesincomplexbrainnetworks
AT laurientipaulj definingnodesincomplexbrainnetworks