使用Jansen和Rit神经质量模型比较个体和组水平模拟的神经生理脑连接。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Network Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-10-01 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1162/netn_a_00303
S D Kulik, L Douw, E van Dellen, M D Steenwijk, J J G Geurts, C J Stam, A Hillebrand, M M Schoonheim, P Tewarie
{"title":"使用Jansen和Rit神经质量模型比较个体和组水平模拟的神经生理脑连接。","authors":"S D Kulik,&nbsp;L Douw,&nbsp;E van Dellen,&nbsp;M D Steenwijk,&nbsp;J J G Geurts,&nbsp;C J Stam,&nbsp;A Hillebrand,&nbsp;M M Schoonheim,&nbsp;P Tewarie","doi":"10.1162/netn_a_00303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Computational models are often used to assess how functional connectivity (FC) patterns emerge from neuronal population dynamics and anatomical brain connections. It remains unclear whether the commonly used group-averaged data can predict individual FC patterns. The Jansen and Rit neural mass model was employed, where masses were coupled using individual structural connectivity (SC). Simulated FC was correlated to individual magnetoencephalography-derived empirical FC. FC was estimated using phase-based (phase lag index (PLI), phase locking value (PLV)), and amplitude-based (amplitude envelope correlation (AEC)) metrics to analyze their goodness of fit for individual predictions. Individual FC predictions were compared against group-averaged FC predictions, and we tested whether SC of a different participant could equally well predict participants' FC patterns. The AEC provided a better match between individually simulated and empirical FC than phase-based metrics. Correlations between simulated and empirical FC were higher using individual SC compared to group-averaged SC. Using SC from other participants resulted in similar correlations between simulated and empirical FC compared to using participants' own SC. This work underlines the added value of FC simulations using individual instead of group-averaged SC for this particular computational model and could aid in a better understanding of mechanisms underlying individual functional network trajectories.</p>","PeriodicalId":48520,"journal":{"name":"Network Neuroscience","volume":"7 3","pages":"950-965"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10473283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing individual and group-level simulated neurophysiological brain connectivity using the Jansen and Rit neural mass model.\",\"authors\":\"S D Kulik,&nbsp;L Douw,&nbsp;E van Dellen,&nbsp;M D Steenwijk,&nbsp;J J G Geurts,&nbsp;C J Stam,&nbsp;A Hillebrand,&nbsp;M M Schoonheim,&nbsp;P Tewarie\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/netn_a_00303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Computational models are often used to assess how functional connectivity (FC) patterns emerge from neuronal population dynamics and anatomical brain connections. It remains unclear whether the commonly used group-averaged data can predict individual FC patterns. The Jansen and Rit neural mass model was employed, where masses were coupled using individual structural connectivity (SC). Simulated FC was correlated to individual magnetoencephalography-derived empirical FC. FC was estimated using phase-based (phase lag index (PLI), phase locking value (PLV)), and amplitude-based (amplitude envelope correlation (AEC)) metrics to analyze their goodness of fit for individual predictions. Individual FC predictions were compared against group-averaged FC predictions, and we tested whether SC of a different participant could equally well predict participants' FC patterns. The AEC provided a better match between individually simulated and empirical FC than phase-based metrics. Correlations between simulated and empirical FC were higher using individual SC compared to group-averaged SC. Using SC from other participants resulted in similar correlations between simulated and empirical FC compared to using participants' own SC. This work underlines the added value of FC simulations using individual instead of group-averaged SC for this particular computational model and could aid in a better understanding of mechanisms underlying individual functional network trajectories.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Network Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"950-965\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10473283/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Network Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00303\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Network Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00303","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

计算模型通常用于评估功能连接(FC)模式是如何从神经元群体动力学和大脑解剖连接中产生的。目前尚不清楚常用的组平均数据是否可以预测单个FC模式。采用Jansen和Rit神经质量模型,其中使用个体结构连接性(SC)对质量进行耦合。模拟FC与个体脑磁图推导的经验FC相关。使用基于相位的(相位滞后指数(PLI)、锁相值(PLV))和基于振幅的(振幅包络相关(AEC))度量来估计FC,以分析其对个体预测的拟合优度。将个体FC预测与组平均FC预测进行比较,我们测试了不同参与者的SC是否能够同样好地预测参与者的FC模式。AEC在单独模拟和经验FC之间提供了比基于相位的度量更好的匹配。与组平均SC相比,使用个体SC的模拟FC和经验FC之间的相关性更高。与使用参与者自己的SC相比,从其他参与者使用SC导致模拟FC和实验FC之间的相似相关性。这项工作强调了使用个体而非群体平均SC对该特定计算模型进行FC模拟的附加值,并有助于更好地理解个体功能网络轨迹的机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing individual and group-level simulated neurophysiological brain connectivity using the Jansen and Rit neural mass model.

Computational models are often used to assess how functional connectivity (FC) patterns emerge from neuronal population dynamics and anatomical brain connections. It remains unclear whether the commonly used group-averaged data can predict individual FC patterns. The Jansen and Rit neural mass model was employed, where masses were coupled using individual structural connectivity (SC). Simulated FC was correlated to individual magnetoencephalography-derived empirical FC. FC was estimated using phase-based (phase lag index (PLI), phase locking value (PLV)), and amplitude-based (amplitude envelope correlation (AEC)) metrics to analyze their goodness of fit for individual predictions. Individual FC predictions were compared against group-averaged FC predictions, and we tested whether SC of a different participant could equally well predict participants' FC patterns. The AEC provided a better match between individually simulated and empirical FC than phase-based metrics. Correlations between simulated and empirical FC were higher using individual SC compared to group-averaged SC. Using SC from other participants resulted in similar correlations between simulated and empirical FC compared to using participants' own SC. This work underlines the added value of FC simulations using individual instead of group-averaged SC for this particular computational model and could aid in a better understanding of mechanisms underlying individual functional network trajectories.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Network Neuroscience
Network Neuroscience NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
68
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Brain signaling becomes less integrated and more segregated with age. CoCoNest: A continuous structural connectivity-based nested family of parcellations of the human cerebral cortex. Cognitive abilities are associated with rapid dynamics of electrophysiological connectome states. Contrasting topologies of synchronous and asynchronous functional brain networks. Exploring memory-related network via dorsal hippocampus suppression.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1