Michael W Cole1, Genevieve J Yang2, John D Murray3, Grega Repovš4, Alan Anticevic5. 1. Center for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience, Rutgers University, 197 University Ave, Newark, NJ 07102, USA. Electronic address: mwcole@mwcole.net. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 George Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA; Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. 3. Center for Neural Science, New York University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 George Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 George Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA; Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA; Department of Psychology, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of neuroscientific studies gain insights by focusing on differences in functional connectivity-between groups, individuals, temporal windows, or task conditions. We found using simulations that additional insights into such differences can be gained by forgoing variance normalization, a procedure used by most functional connectivity measures. Simulations indicated that these functional connectivity measures are sensitive to increases in independent fluctuations (unshared signal) in time series, consistently reducing functional connectivity estimates (e.g., correlations) even though such changes are unrelated to corresponding fluctuations (shared signal) between those time series. This is inconsistent with the common notion of functional connectivity as the amount of inter-region interaction. NEW METHOD: Simulations revealed that a version of correlation without variance normalization - covariance - was able to isolate differences in shared signal, increasing interpretability of observed functional connectivity change. Simulations also revealed cases problematic for non-normalized methods, leading to a "covariance conjunction" method combining the benefits of both normalized and non-normalized approaches. RESULTS: We found that covariance and covariance conjunction methods can detect functional connectivity changes across a variety of tasks and rest in both clinical and non-clinical functional MRI datasets. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): We verified using a variety of tasks and rest in both clinical and non-clinical functional MRI datasets that it matters in practice whether correlation, covariance, or covariance conjunction methods are used. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the practical and theoretical utility of isolating changes in shared signal, improving the ability to interpret observed functional connectivity change.
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of neuroscientific studies gain insights by focusing on differences in functional connectivity-between groups, individuals, temporal windows, or task conditions. We found using simulations that additional insights into such differences can be gained by forgoing variance normalization, a procedure used by most functional connectivity measures. Simulations indicated that these functional connectivity measures are sensitive to increases in independent fluctuations (unshared signal) in time series, consistently reducing functional connectivity estimates (e.g., correlations) even though such changes are unrelated to corresponding fluctuations (shared signal) between those time series. This is inconsistent with the common notion of functional connectivity as the amount of inter-region interaction. NEW METHOD: Simulations revealed that a version of correlation without variance normalization - covariance - was able to isolate differences in shared signal, increasing interpretability of observed functional connectivity change. Simulations also revealed cases problematic for non-normalized methods, leading to a "covariance conjunction" method combining the benefits of both normalized and non-normalized approaches. RESULTS: We found that covariance and covariance conjunction methods can detect functional connectivity changes across a variety of tasks and rest in both clinical and non-clinical functional MRI datasets. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): We verified using a variety of tasks and rest in both clinical and non-clinical functional MRI datasets that it matters in practice whether correlation, covariance, or covariance conjunction methods are used. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the practical and theoretical utility of isolating changes in shared signal, improving the ability to interpret observed functional connectivity change.
Authors: John H Krystal; D Cyril D'Souza; Daniel Mathalon; Edward Perry; Aysenil Belger; Ralph Hoffman Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2003-09-02 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Susheel Vijayraghavan; Min Wang; Shari G Birnbaum; Graham V Williams; Amy F T Arnsten Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2007-02-04 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Alexander L Cohen; Damien A Fair; Nico U F Dosenbach; Francis M Miezin; Donna Dierker; David C Van Essen; Bradley L Schlaggar; Steven E Petersen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Deanna M Barch; Gregory C Burgess; Michael P Harms; Steven E Petersen; Bradley L Schlaggar; Maurizio Corbetta; Matthew F Glasser; Sandra Curtiss; Sachin Dixit; Cindy Feldt; Dan Nolan; Edward Bryant; Tucker Hartley; Owen Footer; James M Bjork; Russ Poldrack; Steve Smith; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Abraham Z Snyder; David C Van Essen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: David C Van Essen; Stephen M Smith; Deanna M Barch; Timothy E J Behrens; Essa Yacoub; Kamil Ugurbil Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Justin T Baker; Avram J Holmes; Grace A Masters; B T Thomas Yeo; Fenna Krienen; Randy L Buckner; Dost Öngür Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Alan Anticevic; Michael W Cole; Grega Repovs; Aleksandar Savic; Naomi R Driesen; Genevieve Yang; Youngsun T Cho; John D Murray; David C Glahn; Xiao-Jing Wang; John H Krystal Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Henry W Chase; Anna Maria Segreti; Timothy A Keller; Vladimir L Cherkassky; Marcel A Just; Lisa A Pan; David A Brent Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-01-15 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Jennifer H Foss-Feig; Brendan D Adkinson; Jie Lisa Ji; Genevieve Yang; Vinod H Srihari; James C McPartland; John H Krystal; John D Murray; Alan Anticevic Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Genevieve J Yang; John D Murray; Xiao-Jing Wang; David C Glahn; Godfrey D Pearlson; Grega Repovs; John H Krystal; Alan Anticevic Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Robin F H Cash; Luca Cocchi; Rodney Anderson; Anton Rogachov; Aaron Kucyi; Alexander J Barnett; Andrew Zalesky; Paul B Fitzgerald Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: James M Shine; Patrick G Bissett; Peter T Bell; Oluwasanmi Koyejo; Joshua H Balsters; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski; Craig A Moodie; Russell A Poldrack Journal: Neuron Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Franz X Vollenweider; Alan Anticevic; Katrin H Preller; Joshua B Burt; Jie Lisa Ji; Charles H Schleifer; Brendan D Adkinson; Philipp Stämpfli; Erich Seifritz; Grega Repovs; John H Krystal; John D Murray Journal: Elife Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Takuya Ito; Scott L Brincat; Markus Siegel; Ravi D Mill; Biyu J He; Earl K Miller; Horacio G Rotstein; Michael W Cole Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Jie Lisa Ji; Marjolein Spronk; Kaustubh Kulkarni; Grega Repovš; Alan Anticevic; Michael W Cole Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 6.556