Abstract

Large-scale white matter pathways crisscrossing the cortex create a complex pattern of connectivity that underlies human cognitive function. Generative mechanisms for this architecture have been difficult to identify in part because little is known in general about mechanistic drivers of structured networks. Here we contrast network properties derived from diffusion spectrum imaging data of the human brain with 13 synthetic network models chosen to probe the roles of physical network embedding and temporal network growth. We characterize both the empirical and synthetic networks using familiar graph metrics, but presented here in a more complete statistical form, as scatter plots and distributions, to reveal the full range of variability of each measure across scales in the network. We focus specifically on the degree distribution, degree assortativity, hierarchy, topological Rentian scaling, and topological fractal scaling—in addition to several summary statistics, including the mean clustering coefficient, the shortest path-length, and the network diameter. The models are investigated in a progressive, branching sequence, aimed at capturing different elements thought to be important in the brain, and range from simple random and regular networks, to models that incorporate specific growth rules and constraints. We find that synthetic models that constrain the network nodes to be physically embedded in anatomical brain regions tend to produce distributions that are most similar to the corresponding measurements for the brain. We also find that network models hardcoded to display one network property (e.g., assortativity) do not in general simultaneously display a second (e.g., hierarchy). This relative independence of network properties suggests that multiple neurobiological mechanisms might be at play in the development of human brain network architecture. Together, the network models that we develop and employ provide a potentially useful starting point for the statistical inference of brain network structure from neuroimaging data.

Highlights

  • Increasing resolution of noninvasive neuroimaging methods for quantifying structural brain organization in humans has inspired a great deal of theoretical activity [1,2,3,4], aimed at developing methods to understand, diagnose, and predict aspects of human development and behavior based on underlying organizational principles deduced from these measurements [5,6,7]

  • We find that network models hardcoded to display one network property do not in general simultaneously display a second, suggesting that multiple neurobiological mechanisms drive human brain network development

  • Some of these models have been defined previously (ER, CF, Ring Lattice (RL), Gaussian Drop-Off (GD), Modular Small-World (MS), Fractal Hierarchical (FH), BA, Random Geometric (RG), Minimally Wired (MW), Distance Drop-Off (DD)) and others we introduce here for the first time (AF, Distance Drop-Off Growth (DDG), Hybrid Distance Growth (HDG))

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Increasing resolution of noninvasive neuroimaging methods for quantifying structural brain organization in humans has inspired a great deal of theoretical activity [1,2,3,4], aimed at developing methods to understand, diagnose, and predict aspects of human development and behavior based on underlying organizational principles deduced from these measurements [5,6,7]. While resolution has not reached the level of individual neurons and axons, these methods lead to reliable estimates of the density of connections between regions and fiber path lengths. Comparison studies with synthetic network models, employing quantitative graph statistics to reduce the data to a smaller number of diagnostics, have provided valuable insights [11,12,13,14,15]. These models and statistics provide a vehicle to compare neuroimaging data with corresponding measurements for wellcharacterized network null models. The methods are still in development [16,17,18], and vulnerable to the loss of critical information through oversimplification of complex, structured data sets, by restricting comparisons to coarse measurements that ignore variability [10,19,20]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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