| Literature DB >> 28491028 |
Vasileios C Pezoulas1, Michalis Zervakis1, Sifis Michelogiannis2, Manousos A Klados3.
Abstract
During the last years, it has been established that the prefrontal and posterior parietal brain lobes, which are mostly related to intelligence, have many connections to cerebellum. However, there is a limited research investigating cerebellum's relationship with cognitive processes. In this study, the network of cerebellum was analyzed in order to investigate its overall organization in individuals with low and high fluid [corrected] Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data were selected from 136 subjects in resting-state from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) database and were further separated into two IQ groups composed of 69 low-IQ and 67 high-IQ subjects. Cerebellum was parcellated into 28 lobules/ROIs (per subject) using a standard cerebellum anatomical atlas. Thereafter, correlation matrices were constructed by computing Pearson's correlation coefficients between the average BOLD time-series for each pair of ROIs inside the cerebellum. By computing conventional graph metrics, small-world network properties were verified using the weighted clustering coefficient and the characteristic path length for estimating the trade-off between segregation and integration. In addition, a connectivity metric was computed for extracting the average cost per network. The concept of the Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) was adopted and implemented in order to avoid methodological biases in graph comparisons and retain only the strongest connections per network. Subsequently, six global and three local metrics were calculated in order to retrieve useful features concerning the characteristics of each MST. Moreover, the local metrics of degree and betweenness centrality were used to detect hubs, i.e., nodes with high importance. The computed set of metrics gave rise to extensive statistical analysis in order to examine differences between low and high-IQ groups, as well as between all possible gender-based group combinations. Our results reveal that both male and female networks have small-world properties with differences in females (especially in higher IQ females) indicative of higher neural efficiency in cerebellum. There is a trend toward the same direction in men, but without significant differences. Finally, three lobules showed maximum correlation with the median response time in low-IQ individuals, implying that there is an increased effort dedicated locally by this population in cognitive tasks.Entities:
Keywords: cerebellum; crystallized IQ; fMRI; median response time; minimum spanning tree; small-world network
Year: 2017 PMID: 28491028 PMCID: PMC5405083 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Cerebellum parcellation procedure (coronal view, A: front, B: back) followed by its flat surface representation (C). Color coding is based on each lobule's volumetric size.
Network descriptors used in this study.
| Graph | – | Weighted and undirected graph | |
| Set of vertices | – | Set of n-nodes | |
| Set of edges | – | Set of n*(n−1)/2 maximum edges | |
| Leaf nodes | – | Number of nodes with degree equal to one | |
| Weight | – | Weight of the edge connecting nodes | |
| Number of triangles | Weighted geometric mean of triangles around a node | ||
| Shortest path | - | Shortest weighted path between nodes | |
| Weighted clustering coefficient | Segregation measure that quantifies the local connectedness of a network | ||
| Average weighted clustering coefficient | A global version of the weighted clustering coefficient used for computing σ | ||
| Weighted characteristic path length | Integration measure | ||
| γ | Gamma | Ratio of the weighted clustering coefficients between original and random networks | |
| λ | Lambda | Ratio of weighted path lengths between original and random networks | |
| σ | Small-worldness index | σ | Reveals whether a network has an optimal organization or not |
| Connectivity | Measures the connectedness of a network in terms of network's density, where | ||
| Degree | Number of neighbors connected to a node (hub metric) | ||
| Betweenness centrality | Quantifies the importance of a node (hub metric) | ||
| Eccentricity | – | Indicates whether a node is central or peripheral in a network | |
| Diameter | – | Maximum eccentricity | |
| Radius | – | Minimum eccentricity | |
| Leaf fraction | Fraction of nodes with degree equal to one | ||
| Tree-hierarchy | Quantifies the balance between diameter reduction and overload prevention | ||
| κ | Kappa or degree divergence | Measure of the broadness of the degree distribution | |
| Degree correlation | – | Quantifies the influence of a node's degree by its neighbors |
Figure 2Average weighted and undirected graphs per IQ group (left panel, A: low-IQ and B: high-IQ) and their corresponding MSTs (right panel, C: low-IQ and D: high-IQ). On the latter representation, each node's size depends linearly on its average BC value.
Figure 3Average DEG, BC, ECC values per ROI for both IQ groups on the left panel and the corresponding distributions on the right panel. DEG and BC values tend to have similar distributions since the number of connections that pass through a specific node is related with the overloadness within the network and vice versa. The number of nodes with the highest BC and DEG values (hubs) is small. On the other hand, ECC values exhibit a much more homogeneous diffuse. Nodes with small eccentricity values are much closer to the center of the network and are characterized by higher BC and DEG values.
Figure 4Hub locations on cerebellum for low (green) and high (yellow) IQ groups based on BC (A) and DEG (B). The size of each node depends on the percentage of low/high-IQ subjects with the highest BC (C) and DEG (D) values.
Figure 5Regions with the maximum correlation between average DEG or BC measure and median response times (MRTs) for low and high-IQ groups.
ROI(s) with the maximum correlation coefficient between MRT and DEG or BC measure for both IQ groups and gender.
| Low IQ | Total | 0.42 | Left X | 0.43 | Left X | ||
| Males | 0.57 | Left Crus II | 0.54 | Vermis VIIIb | |||
| Females | 0.47 | Left X | 0.46 | Left X | |||
| High IQ | Total | 0.14 | 0.27 | Vermis VIIIb | 0.19 | 0.14 | Vermis VIIIb |
| Males | 0.21 | 0.29 | Left VI | 0.25 | 0.2 | Right X | |
| Females | 0.23 | 0.18 | Vermis VIIIb | 0.2 | 0.24 | Vermis VIIIb | |
With bold highlight: statistical significant results (p < 0.05).
Statistical analysis results per female IQ group and low IQ group for the main network metrics.
| 1.2092 ± 0.0923 | 1.1720 ± 0.0657 | 4.2866 | 1.1671 ± 0.0661 | 1.2092 ± 0.0923 | 4.1227 | |||
| 0.9562 ± 0.0997 | 0.9781 ± 0.0466 | 2.1312 | 0.1482 | 0.9523 ± 0.0774 | 0.9562 ± 0.0997 | 0.0055 | 0.9412 | |
| σ | 1.2821 ± 0.1994 | 1.2002 ± 0.0783 | 4.8060 | 1.2334 ± 0.1243 | 1.2821 ± 0.1994 | 0.9492 | 0.3334 | |
| 0.1629 ± 0.0689 | 0.2014 ± 0.0856 | 5.8085 | 0.2058 ± 0.0822 | 0.1629 ± 0.0689 | 4.7494 | |||
| 0.4291 ± 0.1654 | 0.3450 ± 0.1263 | 6.8101 | 0.3493 ± 0.1491 | 0.4291 ± 0.1654 | 5.1985 | |||
| 0.4394 ± 0.1648 | 0.3629 ± 0.1510 | 5.8233 | 0.3584 ± 0.1524 | 0.4394 ± 0.1648 | 5.3445 | |||
| 0.5935 ± 0.1034 | 0.6063 ± 0.0940 | 0.4147 | 0.5214 | 0.5892 ± 0.0775 | 0.5935 ± 0.1034 | 0.0001 | 0.9907 | |
| 0.2968 ± 0.0517 | 0.3031 ± 0.0470 | 0.4147 | 0.5214 | 0.2946 ± 0.0387 | 0.2968 ± 0.0517 | 0.0001 | 0.9907 | |
| κ | 2.2465 ± 0.2827 | 2.3164 ± 0.2666 | 1.4271 | 0.2358 | 2.3391 ± 0.4098 | 2.2465 ± 0.2827 | 0.7141 | 0.4011 |
| −0.3474 ± 0.1338 | −0.3766 ± 0.1264 | 1.6282 | 0.2056 | −0.3374 ± 0.1138 | −0.3474 ± 0.1338 | 0.0033 | 0.9544 |
With bold highlight: statistical significant results (p < 0.05).