OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to didactically compare resting state connectivity networks computed using two different methods called phase locking value (PLV) and convergent cross-mapping (CCM). PLV is a ubiquitous measure of connectivity in electrophysiological research but is less often applied to fMRI BOLD timeseries since this model-based metric assumes that oscillatory coupling is a sufficient condition for connectivity. Alternatively, CCM is a model-free method, which detects potentially nonlinear causal influences based on the ability to estimate one timeseries with another and does not assume an oscillatory structure. APPROACH: We use a toy dataset to test the PLV and CCM algorithms under different known synchronization conditions. Additionally, experimental resting state EEG and fMRI datasets are used for comparison. MAIN RESULTS: The results show that the resting state brain networks computed using both algorithms produce similar results for both resting state EEG and fMRI datasets. For both neuroimaging datasets, the network characteristics follow the same trends and the similarity between the computed networks, for both algorithms, is highly significant. SIGNIFICANCE: CCM is able to identify low or one-way connection strengths better than PLV but takes exponentially longer to compute. Based on these results, PLV provides a good metric for on-line network identification because it is both computationally fast and an excellent approximation of the network computed with CCM.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to didactically compare resting state connectivity networks computed using two different methods called phase locking value (PLV) and convergent cross-mapping (CCM). PLV is a ubiquitous measure of connectivity in electrophysiological research but is less often applied to fMRI BOLD timeseries since this model-based metric assumes that oscillatory coupling is a sufficient condition for connectivity. Alternatively, CCM is a model-free method, which detects potentially nonlinear causal influences based on the ability to estimate one timeseries with another and does not assume an oscillatory structure. APPROACH: We use a toy dataset to test the PLV and CCM algorithms under different known synchronization conditions. Additionally, experimental resting state EEG and fMRI datasets are used for comparison. MAIN RESULTS: The results show that the resting state brain networks computed using both algorithms produce similar results for both resting state EEG and fMRI datasets. For both neuroimaging datasets, the network characteristics follow the same trends and the similarity between the computed networks, for both algorithms, is highly significant. SIGNIFICANCE: CCM is able to identify low or one-way connection strengths better than PLV but takes exponentially longer to compute. Based on these results, PLV provides a good metric for on-line network identification because it is both computationally fast and an excellent approximation of the network computed with CCM.