Cargando…

Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?

The human brain can be modelled as a complex networked structure with brain regions as individual nodes and their anatomical/functional links as edges. Functional brain networks are constructed by first extracting weighted connectivity matrices, and then binarizing them to minimize the noise level....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Jalili, Mahdi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4945914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27417262
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29780
_version_ 1782442943961890816
author Jalili, Mahdi
author_facet Jalili, Mahdi
author_sort Jalili, Mahdi
collection PubMed
description The human brain can be modelled as a complex networked structure with brain regions as individual nodes and their anatomical/functional links as edges. Functional brain networks are constructed by first extracting weighted connectivity matrices, and then binarizing them to minimize the noise level. Different methods have been used to estimate the dependency values between the nodes and to obtain a binary network from a weighted connectivity matrix. In this work we study topological properties of EEG-based functional networks in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). To estimate the connectivity strength between two time series, we use Pearson correlation, coherence, phase order parameter and synchronization likelihood. In order to binarize the weighted connectivity matrices, we use Minimum Spanning Tree (MST), Minimum Connected Component (MCC), uniform threshold and density-preserving methods. We find that the detected AD-related abnormalities highly depend on the methods used for dependency estimation and binarization. Topological properties of networks constructed using coherence method and MCC binarization show more significant differences between AD and healthy subjects than the other methods. These results might explain contradictory results reported in the literature for network properties specific to AD symptoms. The analysis method should be seriously taken into account in the interpretation of network-based analysis of brain signals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4945914
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49459142016-07-26 Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter? Jalili, Mahdi Sci Rep Article The human brain can be modelled as a complex networked structure with brain regions as individual nodes and their anatomical/functional links as edges. Functional brain networks are constructed by first extracting weighted connectivity matrices, and then binarizing them to minimize the noise level. Different methods have been used to estimate the dependency values between the nodes and to obtain a binary network from a weighted connectivity matrix. In this work we study topological properties of EEG-based functional networks in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). To estimate the connectivity strength between two time series, we use Pearson correlation, coherence, phase order parameter and synchronization likelihood. In order to binarize the weighted connectivity matrices, we use Minimum Spanning Tree (MST), Minimum Connected Component (MCC), uniform threshold and density-preserving methods. We find that the detected AD-related abnormalities highly depend on the methods used for dependency estimation and binarization. Topological properties of networks constructed using coherence method and MCC binarization show more significant differences between AD and healthy subjects than the other methods. These results might explain contradictory results reported in the literature for network properties specific to AD symptoms. The analysis method should be seriously taken into account in the interpretation of network-based analysis of brain signals. Nature Publishing Group 2016-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4945914/ /pubmed/27417262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29780 Text en Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Jalili, Mahdi
Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?
title Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?
title_full Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?
title_fullStr Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?
title_full_unstemmed Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?
title_short Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?
title_sort functional brain networks: does the choice of dependency estimator and binarization method matter?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4945914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27417262
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29780
work_keys_str_mv AT jalilimahdi functionalbrainnetworksdoesthechoiceofdependencyestimatorandbinarizationmethodmatter