Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-12
Data-Driven Topological Filtering Based on Orthogonal Minimal Spanning Trees: Application to Multigroup Magnetoencephalography Resting-State Connectivity
In the present study, a novel data-driven topological filtering technique is introduced to derive the backbone of functional brain networks relying on orthogonal minimal spanning trees (OMSTs). The method aims to identify the essential functional connections to ensure optimal information flow via the objective criterion of global efficiency minus the cost of surviving connections. The OMST technique was applied to multichannel, resting-state neuromagnetic recordings from four groups of participants: healthy adults (n = 50), adults who have suffered mild traumatic brain injury (n = 30), typically developing children (n = 27), and reading-disabled children (n = 25). Weighted interactions between network nodes (sensors) were computed using an integrated approach of dominant intrinsic coupling modes based on two alternative metrics (symbolic mutual information and phase lag index), resulting in excellent discrimination of individual cases according to their group membership. Classification results using OMST-derived functional networks were clearly superior to results using either relative power spectrum features or functional networks derived through the conventional minimal spanning tree algorithm.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamA, MilhamM, Di MartinoA, CraddockRC, SamarasD, ThirionB, VaroquauxG. 2017. Deriving reproducible biomarkers from multi-site resting-state data: an autism-based example. Neuroimage, 147:736–745.
2.
AntonakakisM, DimitriadisSI, ZervakisM, MicheloyannisS, RezaieR, Babajani-FeremiA, et al.2016. Altered cross-frequency coupling in resting-state MEG after mild traumatic brain injury. Int J Psychophysiol, 102:1–11.
3.
AntonakakisM, DimitriadisSI, ZervakisM, RezaieR, Babajani-FeremiA, MicheloyannisS, et al.2015. Comparison of Brain Network Models Using Cross-Frequency Coupling and Attack Strategies. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual International Conference of IEEE EMBS, Milan, Italy, pp. 7426–7429.
BastosAM, SchoffelenJM. 2016. A tutorial review of functional connectivity analysis methods and their interpretational pitfalls. Front Syst Neurosci, 9:175.
8.
BorgI, GroenenP. 2005. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; pp. 207–212.
9.
BullmoreET, BassettDS. 2011. Brain graphs: graphical models of the human brain connectome. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 7:113–140.
10.
BullmoreET, SpornsO. 2009. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci, 10:186–198.
11.
BuzsákiG. 2006. Rhythms of the Brain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
BuzsákiG, DraguhnA. 2004. Neuronal oscillations in cortical networks. Science, 304:1926–1929.
13.
BuzsákiG, WatsonBO. 2012. Brain rhythms and neural syntax: implications for efficient coding of cognitive content and neuropsychiatric disease. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 14:345–367.
14.
CanoltyRT, KnightRT. 2010. The functional role of cross-frequency coupling. Trends Cogn Sci, 14:506–515.
15.
DansereauC, BenhajaliY, RisterucciC, PichEM, OrbanP, ArnoldD, BellecP. 2017. Statistical power and prediction accuracy in multisite resting-state fMRI connectivity. Neuroimage, 149:220–232.
16.
DecoG, CabralJ, WoolrichM, StevnerAB, van HarteveltTJ, KringelbachM. 2017. Single or multi-frequency generators in on-going brain activity: a mechanistic whole-brain model of empirical MEG data. Neuroimage, 152:538–550.
17.
DelormeA, MakeigS. 2004. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods, 134:9–21.
18.
DimitriadisS, SunY, LaskarisN, ThakorN, BezerianosA. 2016a. Revealing cross-frequency causal interactions during a mental arithmetic task through symbolic transfer entropy: a novel vector-quantization approach. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 24:1017–1028.
19.
DimitriadisSI. 2016. Combining Intra and Inter-Frequency Dominant Coupling Modes into a single Dynamic Functional Connectivity Graph: Dynome, Dyconnectomics and Oscillopathies. 20th International Conference on Biomagnetism, Seoul, Korea.
20.
DimitriadisSI, LaskarisNA, BitzidouMP, TarnanasI, TsolakiMN. 2015a. A novel biomarker of amnestic MCI based on dynamic cross-frequency coupling patterns during cognitive brain responses. Front Neurosci, 9:350.
21.
DimitriadisSI, LaskarisNA, SimosPG, FletcherJM, PapanicolaouAC. 2016b. Greater repertoire and temporal variability of cross-frequency coupling (CFC) modes in resting-state neuromagnetic recordings among children with reading difficulties. Front Hum Neurosci, 10:163.
22.
DimitriadisSI, LaskarisNA, SimosPG, MicheloyannisS, FletcherJM, RezaieR, PapanicolaouAC. 2013. Altered temporal correlations in resting-state connectivity fluctuations in children with reading difficulties detected via MEG. NeuroImage, 83:307–31.
DimitriadisSI, SallisC, TarnanasI, LindenDE. 2017. topological filtering of dynamic functional brain networks unfolds informative chronnectomics: a novel data-driven thresholding scheme based on orthogonal minimal spanning trees (OMSTs). Front Neuroinform, 11:28.
25.
DimitriadisSI, SunY, KwokK, LaskarisNA, ThakorN, BezerianosA. 2015b. Cognitive workload assessment based on the tensorial treatment of EEG estimates of cross-frequency phase interactions. Ann Biomed Eng, 43:977–89.
26.
DimitriadisSI, SunY, ThakorNV, BezerianosA. 2016c. Causal interactions between frontalθ–parieto-occipitalα2 predict performance on a mental arithmetic task. Front Hum Neurosci, 10:454.
27.
DimitriadisSI, TarnanasI, WiederholdgM, WiederholdhB, TsolakiM, FleishE. 2016d. Mnemonic strategy training of the elderly at risk for dementia enhances integration of information processing via cross-frequency coupling. Alzheimers Dement, 2:241–249.
28.
DimitriadisSI, ZouridakisG, RezaieR, Babajani-FeremiA, PapanicolaouAC. 2015c. Functional connectivity changes detected with magnetoencephalography after mild traumatic brain injury. Neuroimage Clin, 9:519–531.
29.
DunkleyBT, Da CostaL, BethuneA, JetlyR, PangEW, TaylorMJ, DoesburgSM. 2015. Low-frequency connectivity is associated with mild traumatic brain injury. Neuroimage Clin, 7:611–621.
EscuderoJ, HorneroR, AbásoloD, FernándezA. 2011. Quantitative evaluation of artifact removal in real magnetoencephalogram signals with blind source separation. Ann Biomed Eng, 39:2274–2286.
32.
FotopoulouF, EconomouG. 2014. Graph Based Re-ranking Method with Application to Handwritten Digits. 14th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (ICFHR), Herakleion, Greece. DOI:10.1109/ICFHR.2014.131.
33.
FoussF, FrancoisseK, YenL, PirotteA, SaerensM. 2012. An experimental investigation of kernels on graphs for collaborative recommendation and semisupervised classification. Neural Netw, 31:53–72.
34.
HammondD, GurY, JohnsonC. 2013. Graph Diffusion Distance: A Difference Measure for Weighted Graphs Based on the Graph Laplacian Exponential Kernel. In Proceedings of IEEE GlobalSIP, Austin, TX, p. 419.
35.
JansonS, LonardiS, SzpankowskiW. 2004. On average sequence complexity. Theor Comput Sci, 326:213–227.
36.
JirsaV, MüllerV. 2013. Cross-frequency coupling in real and virtual brain networks. Front Comput Neurosci, 7:78.
37.
KhazaeeA, Ata EbrahimzadehA, Babajani-FeremiA. 2016. Classification of patients with MCI and AD from healthy controls using directed graph measures of resting-state fMRI. Behav Brain Res, 322:339–350.
38.
KingJR, SittJD, FaugerasF, RohautB, El KarouiI, CohenL, et al.2013. Information sharing in the brain indexes consciousness in noncommunicative patients. Curr Biol, 23:1914–9.
39.
KruskalJB. 1956. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc Am Math Soc, 7:48–50.
40.
LlinasRR. 2014. Intrinsic electrical properties of mammalian neurons and CNS function: a historical perspective. Front Cell Neurosci. 8:320.
41.
MeierJ, TewarieP, Van MieghemPF. 2015. The union of shortest path trees of functional brain networks. Brain Connect, 5:575–81.
42.
OostenveldR, FriesP, MarisE, Schoffelen. 2011. FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput Intell Neurosci, 2011:e156869.
43.
PrimRC. 1957. Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell Syst Tech J, 36: 1389–1401.
44.
RobinsonSE, MandellAJ. 2015. Mutual information in a MEG complexity measure suggests regional hyper-connectivity in schizophrenic probands. Neuropsychopharmacology, 40:251–252.
45.
RouxF, WibralM, SingerW, AruJ, UhlhaasPJ. 2013. The phase of thalamic alpha activity modulates cortical gamma-band activity: evidence from resting-state MEG recordings. J Neurosci, 33:17827–17835.
46.
RubinovM, SpornsO. 2010. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Neuroimage, 52:1059–1069.
47.
ShewWL, YangH, PetermannT, RoyR, PlenzD. 2009. Neuronal avalanches imply maximum dynamic range in cortical networks at criticality. J Neurosci, 29:15595–15600.
48.
StamCJ. 2014. Modern network science of neurological disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci, 15:683–695.
49.
StamCJ, NolteG, DaffertshoferA. 2007. Phase lag index: assessment of functional connectivity from multichannel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources. Hum Brain Mapp, 28:1178–1193
50.
StamoulisC, VanderwertRE, ZeanahCH, FoxNA, NelsonCA. 2015. Early psychosocial neglect adversely impacts developmental trajectories of brain oscillations and their interactions. J Cogn Neurosci, 27:2512–28.
51.
TelesfordQ, SimpsonSL, BurdetteJH, HayasakaS, laurientiPJ. 2011. The brain as a complex system: using network science as a tool for understanding the brain. Brain Connect, 1:295–308.
52.
TewarieP, van DellenE, HillebrandA, StamCJ. 2015. The minimum spanning tree: an unbiased method for brain network analysis. Neuroimage, 104:177–88.
53.
van den HeuvelMP, de LangeSC, ZaleskyA, SeguinC, YeoBT, SchmidtR. 2017. Proportional thresholding in resting-state fMRI functional connectivity networks and consequences for patient-control connectome studies: issues and recommendations. Neuroimage, 152:437–449
54.
Van VeenBD, van DrongelenW, YuchtmanM, SuzukiA. 1997. Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 44:867–880.
55.
Van WijkBC, StamCJ, DaffertshoferA. 2010. Comparing brain networks of different size and connectivity density using graph theory. PLoS One, 5:e13701.
56.
VarelaF, LachauxJP, RodriguezE, MartinerieJ. 2001. The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2:229–239.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
