A comparison between power spectral density and network metrics: an EEG study

Power spectral density (PSD) and network analysis performed on functional correlation (FC) patterns represent two common approaches used to characterize Electroencephalographic (EEG) data. Despite the two approaches are widely used, their possible association may need more attention. To investigate this question, we performed a comparison between PSD and some widely used nodal network metrics (namely strength, clustering coefficient and betweenness centrality), using two different publicly available resting-state EEG datasets, both at scalp and source levels, employing four different FC methods (PLV, PLI, AEC and AECC). Here we show that the two approaches may provide similar information and that their correlation depends on the method used to estimate FC. In particular, our results show a strong correlation between PSD and nodal network metrics derived from FC methods (PLV and AEC) that do not limit the effects of volume conduction/signal leakage. The correlations are less relevant for more conservative FC methods (AECC). These findings suggest that the results derived from the two different approaches may be not independent and should not be treated as distinct analyses. We conclude that it may represent good practice to report the findings from the two approaches in conjunction to have a more comprehensive view of the results.

[1]  C. Stam Modern network science of neurological disorders , 2014, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[2]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics? , 2016, NeuroImage.

[3]  Markus Siegel,et al.  Dissociated cortical phase- and amplitude-coupling patterns in the human brain , 2018, bioRxiv.

[4]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Large-scale cortical correlation structure of spontaneous oscillatory activity , 2012, Nature Neuroscience.

[5]  Dezhong Yao,et al.  Large-Scale Functional Networks Identified from Resting-State EEG Using Spatial ICA , 2016, PloS one.

[6]  Olaf Sporns,et al.  Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations , 2010, NeuroImage.

[7]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Brainstorm: A User-Friendly Application for MEG/EEG Analysis , 2011, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[8]  F. Varela,et al.  Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[9]  Bernadette C. M. van Wijk,et al.  On the Influence of Amplitude on the Connectivity between Phases , 2011, Front. Neuroinform..

[10]  Ricardo Bruña,et al.  Phase locking value revisited: teaching new tricks to an old dog , 2017, Journal of neural engineering.

[11]  C. Stam,et al.  Phase lag index: Assessment of functional connectivity from multi channel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[12]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  Quantifying the Effect of Demixing Approaches on Directed Connectivity Estimated Between Reconstructed EEG Sources , 2019, Brain Topography.

[13]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  A comparison of spectral magnitude and phase-locking value analyses of the frequency-following response to complex tones. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Jeffrey M. Hausdorff,et al.  Physionet: Components of a New Research Resource for Complex Physiologic Signals". Circu-lation Vol , 2000 .

[15]  Matteo Fraschini,et al.  A comparison between power spectral density and network metrics: An EEG study , 2020, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[16]  C. Stam,et al.  The effect of epoch length on estimated EEG functional connectivity and brain network organisation , 2016, Journal of neural engineering.

[17]  Matteo Fraschini,et al.  A comparison between scalp- and source-reconstructed EEG networks , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[18]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  Gareth R. Barnes,et al.  Frequency-dependent functional connectivity within resting-state networks: An atlas-based MEG beamformer solution , 2012, NeuroImage.