Abstract

The properties of functional brain networks strongly depend on how their nodes are chosen. Commonly, nodes are defined by Regions of Interest (ROIs), predetermined groupings of fMRI measurement voxels. Earlier, we demonstrated that the functional homogeneity of ROIs, captured by their spatial consistency, varies widely across ROIs in commonly used brain atlases. Here, we ask how ROIs behave as nodes of dynamic brain networks. To this end, we use two measures: spatiotemporal consistency measures changes in spatial consistency across time and network turnover quantifies the changes in the local network structure around an ROI. We find that spatial consistency varies non-uniformly in space and time, which is reflected in the variation of spatiotemporal consistency across ROIs. Furthermore, we see time-dependent changes in the network neighborhoods of the ROIs, reflected in high network turnover. Network turnover is nonuniformly distributed across ROIs: ROIs with high spatiotemporal consistency have low network turnover. Finally, we reveal that there is rich voxel-level correlation structure inside ROIs. Because the internal structure and the connectivity of ROIs vary in time, the common approach of using static node definitions may be surprisingly inaccurate. Therefore, network neuroscience would greatly benefit from node definition strategies tailored for dynamical networks.

Highlights

  • In 1909, Korbinian Brodmann published the results of his seminal work: maps of brain areas with different cytoarchitectures

  • Regions of Interest (ROIs) consist of several Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measurement voxels that are assumed to be functionally homogeneous, that is, behave

  • We showed that the assumption of similar voxel dynamics is not always true: functional homogeneity varies widely across ROIs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In 1909, Korbinian Brodmann published the results of his seminal work: maps of brain areas with different cytoarchitectures. His results were among the first to suggest that the brain does. Since Brodmann’s time, the neuroscientific community has reached consensus on the distributed nature of brain function (see Wig, Schlaggar, & Petersen (2011) for a review). Because of the crucial role of connectivity in the brain function, it is natural to model the brain as a network. In a network model of the brain, the nodes represent brain areas and the links represent the anatomical or functional connections between the nodes (Bassett & Sporns, 2017; Sporns, 2013a, 2013b; Wig et al, 2011). See, for example, Bassett and Sporns (2017), Betzel and Bassett (2017), Sporns (2013a), and Wig et al (2011)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.