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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |