Cargando…

A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks

The growing interest in brain networks to study the brain’s function in cognition and diseases has produced an increase in methods to extract these networks. Typically, each method yields a different network. Therefore, one may ask what the resulting networks represent. To address this issue we cons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hebbink, Jurgen, van Blooijs, Dorien, Huiskamp, Geertjan, Leijten, Frans S. S., van Gils, Stephan A., Meijer, Hil G. E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6476864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30523480
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1
_version_ 1783412947961249792
author Hebbink, Jurgen
van Blooijs, Dorien
Huiskamp, Geertjan
Leijten, Frans S. S.
van Gils, Stephan A.
Meijer, Hil G. E.
author_facet Hebbink, Jurgen
van Blooijs, Dorien
Huiskamp, Geertjan
Leijten, Frans S. S.
van Gils, Stephan A.
Meijer, Hil G. E.
author_sort Hebbink, Jurgen
collection PubMed
description The growing interest in brain networks to study the brain’s function in cognition and diseases has produced an increase in methods to extract these networks. Typically, each method yields a different network. Therefore, one may ask what the resulting networks represent. To address this issue we consider electrocorticography (ECoG) data where we compare three methods. We derive networks from on-going ECoG data using two traditional methods: cross-correlation (CC) and Granger causality (GC). Next, connectivity is probed actively using single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES). We compare the overlap in connectivity between these three methods as well as their ability to reveal well-known anatomical connections in the language circuit. We find that strong connections in the CC network form more or less a subset of the SPES network. GC and SPES are related more weakly, although GC connections coincide more frequently with SPES connections compared to non-existing SPES connections. Connectivity between the two major hubs in the language circuit, Broca’s and Wernicke’s area, is only found in SPES networks. Our results are of interest for the use of patient-specific networks obtained from ECoG. In epilepsy research, such networks form the basis for methods that predict the effect of epilepsy surgery. For this application SPES networks are interesting as they disclose more physiological connections compared to CC and GC networks. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6476864
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64768642019-05-14 A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks Hebbink, Jurgen van Blooijs, Dorien Huiskamp, Geertjan Leijten, Frans S. S. van Gils, Stephan A. Meijer, Hil G. E. Brain Topogr Original Paper The growing interest in brain networks to study the brain’s function in cognition and diseases has produced an increase in methods to extract these networks. Typically, each method yields a different network. Therefore, one may ask what the resulting networks represent. To address this issue we consider electrocorticography (ECoG) data where we compare three methods. We derive networks from on-going ECoG data using two traditional methods: cross-correlation (CC) and Granger causality (GC). Next, connectivity is probed actively using single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES). We compare the overlap in connectivity between these three methods as well as their ability to reveal well-known anatomical connections in the language circuit. We find that strong connections in the CC network form more or less a subset of the SPES network. GC and SPES are related more weakly, although GC connections coincide more frequently with SPES connections compared to non-existing SPES connections. Connectivity between the two major hubs in the language circuit, Broca’s and Wernicke’s area, is only found in SPES networks. Our results are of interest for the use of patient-specific networks obtained from ECoG. In epilepsy research, such networks form the basis for methods that predict the effect of epilepsy surgery. For this application SPES networks are interesting as they disclose more physiological connections compared to CC and GC networks. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2018-12-06 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6476864/ /pubmed/30523480 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Hebbink, Jurgen
van Blooijs, Dorien
Huiskamp, Geertjan
Leijten, Frans S. S.
van Gils, Stephan A.
Meijer, Hil G. E.
A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks
title A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks
title_full A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks
title_fullStr A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks
title_short A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks
title_sort comparison of evoked and non-evoked functional networks
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6476864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30523480
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hebbinkjurgen acomparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT vanblooijsdorien acomparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT huiskampgeertjan acomparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT leijtenfransss acomparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT vangilsstephana acomparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT meijerhilge acomparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT hebbinkjurgen comparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT vanblooijsdorien comparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT huiskampgeertjan comparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT leijtenfransss comparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT vangilsstephana comparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks
AT meijerhilge comparisonofevokedandnonevokedfunctionalnetworks