OBJECTIVE: Predicting how the brain can be driven to specific states by means of internal or external control requires a fundamental understanding of the relationship between neural connectivity and activity. Network control theory is a powerful tool from the physical and engineering sciences that can provide insights regarding that relationship; it formalizes the study of how the dynamics of a complex system can arise from its underlying structure of interconnected units. APPROACH: Given the recent use of network control theory in neuroscience, it is now timely to offer a practical guide to methodological considerations in the controllability of structural brain networks. Here we provide a systematic overview of the framework, examine the impact of modeling choices on frequently studied control metrics, and suggest potentially useful theoretical extensions. We ground our discussions, numerical demonstrations, and theoretical advances in a dataset of high-resolution diffusion imaging with 730 diffusion directions acquired over approximately 1 h of scanning from ten healthy young adults. MAIN RESULTS: Following a didactic introduction of the theory, we probe how a selection of modeling choices affects four common statistics: average controllability, modal controllability, minimum control energy, and optimal control energy. Next, we extend the current state-of-the-art in two ways: first, by developing an alternative measure of structural connectivity that accounts for radial propagation of activity through abutting tissue, and second, by defining a complementary metric quantifying the complexity of the energy landscape of a system. We close with specific modeling recommendations and a discussion of methodological constraints. SIGNIFICANCE: Our hope is that this accessible account will inspire the neuroimaging community to more fully exploit the potential of network control theory in tackling pressing questions in cognitive, developmental, and clinical neuroscience.
OBJECTIVE: Predicting how the brain can be driven to specific states by means of internal or external control requires a fundamental understanding of the relationship between neural connectivity and activity. Network control theory is a powerful tool from the physical and engineering sciences that can provide insights regarding that relationship; it formalizes the study of how the dynamics of a complex system can arise from its underlying structure of interconnected units. APPROACH: Given the recent use of network control theory in neuroscience, it is now timely to offer a practical guide to methodological considerations in the controllability of structural brain networks. Here we provide a systematic overview of the framework, examine the impact of modeling choices on frequently studied control metrics, and suggest potentially useful theoretical extensions. We ground our discussions, numerical demonstrations, and theoretical advances in a dataset of high-resolution diffusion imaging with 730 diffusion directions acquired over approximately 1 h of scanning from ten healthy young adults. MAIN RESULTS: Following a didactic introduction of the theory, we probe how a selection of modeling choices affects four common statistics: average controllability, modal controllability, minimum control energy, and optimal control energy. Next, we extend the current state-of-the-art in two ways: first, by developing an alternative measure of structural connectivity that accounts for radial propagation of activity through abutting tissue, and second, by defining a complementary metric quantifying the complexity of the energy landscape of a system. We close with specific modeling recommendations and a discussion of methodological constraints. SIGNIFICANCE: Our hope is that this accessible account will inspire the neuroimaging community to more fully exploit the potential of network control theory in tackling pressing questions in cognitive, developmental, and clinical neuroscience.
Authors: C J Honey; O Sporns; L Cammoun; X Gigandet; J P Thiran; R Meuli; P Hagmann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Manu S Goyal; Siddarth Venkatesh; Jeffrey Milbrandt; Jeffrey I Gordon; Marcus E Raichle Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: James M Shine; Michael Breakspear; Peter T Bell; Kaylena A Ehgoetz Martens; Richard Shine; Oluwasanmi Koyejo; Olaf Sporns; Russell A Poldrack Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Evelyn Tang; Harang Ju; Graham L Baum; David R Roalf; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Fabio Pasqualetti; Danielle S Bassett Journal: Phys Rev E Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.529
Authors: Sarah F Muldoon; Julia Costantini; W R S Webber; Ronald Lesser; Danielle S Bassett Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Emma K Towlson; Petra E Vértes; Gang Yan; Yee Lian Chew; Denise S Walker; William R Schafer; Albert-László Barabási Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Arianna Menardi; Simone Rossi; Giacomo Koch; Harald Hampel; Andrea Vergallo; Michael A Nitsche; Yaakov Stern; Barbara Borroni; Stefano F Cappa; Maria Cotelli; Giulio Ruffini; Georges El-Fakhri; Paolo M Rossini; Brad Dickerson; Andrea Antal; Claudio Babiloni; Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur; Bruno Dubois; Gustavo Deco; Ulf Ziemann; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Emiliano Santarnecchi Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 11.788
Authors: Rongxiang Tang; Jeremy A Elman; Carol E Franz; Anders M Dale; Lisa T Eyler; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Donald J Hagler; Michael J Lyons; Matthew S Panizzon; Olivia K Puckett; William S Kremen Journal: Geroscience Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 7.581
Authors: Danielle S Bassett; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Zaixu Cui; Jennifer Stiso; Graham L Baum; Jason Z Kim; David R Roalf; Richard F Betzel; Shi Gu; Zhixin Lu; Cedric H Xia; Xiaosong He; Rastko Ciric; Desmond J Oathes; Tyler M Moore; Russell T Shinohara; Kosha Ruparel; Christos Davatzikos; Fabio Pasqualetti; Raquel E Gur; Ruben C Gur Journal: Elife Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Janina Wilmskoetter; Xiaosong He; Lorenzo Caciagli; Jens H Jensen; Barbara Marebwa; Kathryn A Davis; Julius Fridriksson; Alexandra Basilakos; Lorelei P Johnson; Chris Rorden; Danielle Bassett; Leonardo Bonilha Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 6.709
Authors: Linden Parkes; Tyler M Moore; Monica E Calkins; Matthew Cieslak; David R Roalf; Daniel H Wolf; Ruben C Gur; Raquel E Gur; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Danielle S Bassett Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2021-03-21 Impact factor: 12.810
Authors: David M Lydon-Staley; Eli J Cornblath; Ann Sizemore Blevins; Danielle S Bassett Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 8.294