Cargando…

How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?

MEG offers dynamic and spectral resolution for resting-state connectivity which is unavailable in fMRI. However, there are a wide range of available network estimation methods for MEG, and little in the way of existing guidance on which ones to employ. In this technical note, we investigate the exte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Colclough, G.L., Woolrich, M.W., Tewarie, P.K., Brookes, M.J., Quinn, A.J., Smith, S.M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academic Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5056955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27262239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.070
_version_ 1782458969733726208
author Colclough, G.L.
Woolrich, M.W.
Tewarie, P.K.
Brookes, M.J.
Quinn, A.J.
Smith, S.M.
author_facet Colclough, G.L.
Woolrich, M.W.
Tewarie, P.K.
Brookes, M.J.
Quinn, A.J.
Smith, S.M.
author_sort Colclough, G.L.
collection PubMed
description MEG offers dynamic and spectral resolution for resting-state connectivity which is unavailable in fMRI. However, there are a wide range of available network estimation methods for MEG, and little in the way of existing guidance on which ones to employ. In this technical note, we investigate the extent to which many popular measures of stationary connectivity are suitable for use in resting-state MEG, localising magnetic sources with a scalar beamformer. We use as empirical criteria that network measures for individual subjects should be repeatable, and that group-level connectivity estimation shows good reproducibility. Using publically-available data from the Human Connectome Project, we test the reliability of 12 network estimation techniques against these criteria. We find that the impact of magnetic field spread or spatial leakage artefact is profound, creates a major confound for many connectivity measures, and can artificially inflate measures of consistency. Among those robust to this effect, we find poor test-retest reliability in phase- or coherence-based metrics such as the phase lag index or the imaginary part of coherency. The most consistent methods for stationary connectivity estimation over all of our tests are simple amplitude envelope correlation and partial correlation measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5056955
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Academic Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50569552016-10-14 How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics? Colclough, G.L. Woolrich, M.W. Tewarie, P.K. Brookes, M.J. Quinn, A.J. Smith, S.M. Neuroimage Technical Note MEG offers dynamic and spectral resolution for resting-state connectivity which is unavailable in fMRI. However, there are a wide range of available network estimation methods for MEG, and little in the way of existing guidance on which ones to employ. In this technical note, we investigate the extent to which many popular measures of stationary connectivity are suitable for use in resting-state MEG, localising magnetic sources with a scalar beamformer. We use as empirical criteria that network measures for individual subjects should be repeatable, and that group-level connectivity estimation shows good reproducibility. Using publically-available data from the Human Connectome Project, we test the reliability of 12 network estimation techniques against these criteria. We find that the impact of magnetic field spread or spatial leakage artefact is profound, creates a major confound for many connectivity measures, and can artificially inflate measures of consistency. Among those robust to this effect, we find poor test-retest reliability in phase- or coherence-based metrics such as the phase lag index or the imaginary part of coherency. The most consistent methods for stationary connectivity estimation over all of our tests are simple amplitude envelope correlation and partial correlation measures. Academic Press 2016-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5056955/ /pubmed/27262239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.070 Text en © 2016 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Technical Note
Colclough, G.L.
Woolrich, M.W.
Tewarie, P.K.
Brookes, M.J.
Quinn, A.J.
Smith, S.M.
How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
title How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
title_full How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
title_fullStr How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
title_full_unstemmed How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
title_short How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
title_sort how reliable are meg resting-state connectivity metrics?
topic Technical Note
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5056955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27262239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.070
work_keys_str_mv AT colcloughgl howreliablearemegrestingstateconnectivitymetrics
AT woolrichmw howreliablearemegrestingstateconnectivitymetrics
AT tewariepk howreliablearemegrestingstateconnectivitymetrics
AT brookesmj howreliablearemegrestingstateconnectivitymetrics
AT quinnaj howreliablearemegrestingstateconnectivitymetrics
AT smithsm howreliablearemegrestingstateconnectivitymetrics