Investigating Effective Brain Connectivity from fMRI Data: Past Findings and Current Issues with Reference to Granger Causality Analysis

Interactions between brain regions have been recognized as a critical ingredient required to understand brain function. Two modes of interactions have held prominence-synchronization and causal influence. Efforts to ascertain causal influence from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data have relied primarily on confirmatory model-driven approaches, such as dynamic causal modeling and structural equation modeling, and exploratory data-driven approaches such as Granger causality analysis. A slew of recent articles have focused on the relative merits and caveats of these approaches. The relevant studies can be classified into simulations, theoretical developments, and experimental results. In the first part of this review, we will consider each of these themes and critically evaluate their arguments, with regard to Granger causality analysis. Specifically, we argue that simulations are bounded by the assumptions and simplifications made by the simulator, and hence must be regarded only as a guide to experimental design and should not be viewed as the final word. On the theoretical front, we reason that each of the improvements to existing, yet disparate, methods brings them closer to each other with the hope of eventually leading to a unified framework specifically designed for fMRI. We then review latest experimental results that demonstrate the utility and validity of Granger causality analysis under certain experimental conditions. In the second part, we will consider current issues in causal connectivity analysis-hemodynamic variability, sampling, instantaneous versus causal relationship, and task versus resting states. We highlight some of our own work regarding these issues showing the effect of hemodynamic variability and sampling on Granger causality. Further, we discuss recent techniques such as the cubature Kalman filtering, which can perform blind deconvolution of the hemodynamic response robustly well, and hence enabling wider application of Granger causality analysis. Finally, we discuss our previous work on the less-appreciated interactions between instantaneous and causal relationships and the utility and interpretation of Granger causality results obtained from task versus resting state (e.g., ability of causal relationships to provide a mode of connectivity between regions that are instantaneously dissociated in resting state). We conclude by discussing future directions in this area.

[1]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Generalised filtering and stochastic DCM for fMRI , 2011, NeuroImage.

[2]  C. Granger Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods , 1969 .

[3]  F. Gonzalez-Lima,et al.  Structural equation modeling and its application to network analysis in functional brain imaging , 1994 .

[4]  J. Geweke,et al.  Measurement of Linear Dependence and Feedback between Multiple Time Series , 1982 .

[5]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Dual pathways for haptic and visual perception of spatial and texture information , 2011, NeuroImage.

[6]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  DEM: A variational treatment of dynamic systems , 2008, NeuroImage.

[7]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Assessing and Compensating for Zero-Lag Correlation Effects in Time-Lagged Granger Causality Analysis of fMRI , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  C. Segebarth,et al.  Identifying Neural Drivers with Functional MRI: An Electrophysiological Validation , 2008, PLoS biology.

[9]  Rajan S. Patel,et al.  A Bayesian approach to determining connectivity of the human brain , 2006, Human brain mapping.

[10]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Network discovery with DCM , 2011, NeuroImage.

[11]  Kaiming Li,et al.  Fiber-Centered Granger Causality Analysis , 2011, MICCAI.

[12]  Kaustubh Supekar,et al.  Multivariate dynamical systems models for estimating causal interactions in fMRI , 2011, NeuroImage.

[13]  Gabriele Lohmann,et al.  Critical comments on dynamic causal modelling , 2012, NeuroImage.

[14]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Effect of hemodynamic variability on Granger causality analysis of fMRI , 2010, NeuroImage.

[15]  R. Goebel,et al.  Investigating directed influences between activated brain areas in a motor-response task using fMRI. , 2006, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[16]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Effective connectivity during haptic perception: A study using Granger causality analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data , 2008, NeuroImage.

[17]  Suzanne T. Witt,et al.  The Effects of Computational Method, Data Modeling, and TR on Effective Connectivity Results , 2009, Brain Imaging and Behavior.

[18]  Wei Zhu,et al.  Unified structural equation modeling approach for the analysis of multisubject, multivariate functional MRI data , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[19]  Mercedes Atienza,et al.  The Role of Neural Synchronization in the Emergence of Cognition Across the Wake-Sleep Cycle , 2005, Reviews in the neurosciences.

[20]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  The identification of interacting networks in the brain using fMRI: Model selection, causality and deconvolution , 2011, NeuroImage.

[21]  V. Menon,et al.  A critical role for the right fronto-insular cortex in switching between central-executive and default-mode networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  John C Gore,et al.  Functional MRI and multivariate autoregressive models. , 2010, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[23]  Maxim Zaitsev,et al.  Enhancement of temporal resolution and BOLD sensitivity in real-time fMRI using multi-slab echo-volumar imaging , 2012, NeuroImage.

[24]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Mapping directed influence over the brain using Granger causality and fMRI , 2005, NeuroImage.

[25]  Richard B. Buxton,et al.  Dynamic models of BOLD contrast , 2012, NeuroImage.

[26]  Maxim Zaitsev,et al.  Single shot concentric shells trajectories for ultra fast fMRI , 2012, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[27]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Nonlinear Responses in fMRI: The Balloon Model, Volterra Kernels, and Other Hemodynamics , 2000, NeuroImage.

[28]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Posteromedial Parietal Cortical Activity and Inputs Predict Tactile Spatial Acuity , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  Remco J. Renken,et al.  The effect of intra- and inter-subject variability of hemodynamic responses on group level Granger causality analyses , 2011, NeuroImage.

[30]  Katarzyna J. Blinowska,et al.  Determination of EEG activity propagation: pair-wise versus multichannel estimate , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[31]  F. Krueger,et al.  Fluid Intelligence Allows Flexible Recruitment of the Parieto-Frontal Network in Analogical Reasoning , 2011, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[32]  B. Biswal,et al.  Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo‐planar mri , 1995, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[33]  Lawrence L. Wald,et al.  Event-related single-shot volumetric functional magnetic resonance inverse imaging of visual processing , 2008, NeuroImage.

[34]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  The Variability of Human, BOLD Hemodynamic Responses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[35]  Vinod Menon,et al.  Functional connectivity in the resting brain: A network analysis of the default mode hypothesis , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Timothy E. J. Behrens,et al.  Tools of the trade: psychophysiological interactions and functional connectivity. , 2012, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[37]  J. Grafman,et al.  Fronto-parietal regulation of media violence exposure in adolescents: a multi-method study. , 2011, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[38]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Instantaneous and causal connectivity in resting state brain networks derived from functional MRI data , 2011, NeuroImage.

[39]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Multivariate Granger causality analysis of fMRI data , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[40]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling , 2003, NeuroImage.

[41]  F. L. D. Silva,et al.  Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[42]  Michael D Noseworthy,et al.  Attenuation of brain BOLD response following lipid ingestion , 2003, Human brain mapping.

[43]  Karl J. Friston Functional and effective connectivity in neuroimaging: A synthesis , 1994 .

[44]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Art for reward's sake: Visual art recruits the ventral striatum , 2011, NeuroImage.

[45]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Nonlinear Bayesian Filters for Training Recurrent Neural Networks , 2008, MICAI.

[46]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Six problems for causal inference from fMRI , 2010, NeuroImage.

[47]  Scott Peltier,et al.  Connectivity exploration with structural equation modeling: an fMRI study of bimanual motor coordination , 2005, NeuroImage.

[48]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  The danger of systematic bias in group-level FMRI-lag-based causality estimation , 2012, NeuroImage.

[49]  Biyu J. He,et al.  The fMRI signal, slow cortical potential and consciousness , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[50]  D. Poeppel,et al.  The linguistic processes underlying the P600 , 2010 .

[51]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Effective connectivity of the multiplication network: A functional MRI and multivariate granger causality mapping study , 2011, Human brain mapping.

[52]  Yihong Yang,et al.  Evaluating the effective connectivity of resting state networks using conditional Granger causality , 2010, Biological Cybernetics.

[53]  Steven L. Bressler,et al.  Wiener–Granger Causality: A well established methodology , 2011, NeuroImage.

[54]  João Ricardo Sato,et al.  A method to produce evolving functional connectivity maps during the course of an fMRI experiment using wavelet-based time-varying Granger causality , 2006, NeuroImage.

[55]  W. Klimesch,et al.  What does phase information of oscillatory brain activity tell us about cognitive processes? , 2008, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[56]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

[57]  M. Bar The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to generate predictions , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[58]  G. V. Simpson,et al.  Flow of activation from V1 to frontal cortex in humans , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[59]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Network modelling methods for FMRI , 2011, NeuroImage.

[60]  P. Renshaw,et al.  Reduction in BOLD fMRI response to primary visual stimulation following alcohol ingestion , 1998, Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging.

[61]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Neural processing underlying tactile microspatial discrimination in the blind: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[62]  A. Seth,et al.  Granger causality and transfer entropy are equivalent for Gaussian variables. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[63]  Karl J. Friston Causal Modelling and Brain Connectivity in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2009, PLoS biology.

[64]  Timothy M. D. Ebbels,et al.  springScape: visualisation of microarray and contextual bioinformatic data using spring embedding and an "information landscape" , 2006, ISMB.

[65]  D. Schacter,et al.  The Brain's Default Network , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[66]  P F Renshaw,et al.  Influence of baseline hematocrit and hemodilution on BOLD fMRI activation. , 2001, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[67]  Talma Hendler,et al.  The validity of the face-selective ERP N170 component during simultaneous recording with functional MRI , 2008, NeuroImage.

[68]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  Mental chronometry using latency-resolved functional MRI. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[69]  Afonso C. Silva,et al.  Laminar specificity of functional MRI onset times during somatosensory stimulation in rat , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[70]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[71]  K. Sathian,et al.  Activation and Effective Connectivity Changes Following Explicit-Memory Training for Face–Name Pairs in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment , 2011, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[72]  Jagath C. Rajapakse,et al.  Learning functional structure from fMR images , 2006, NeuroImage.

[73]  Moriah E. Thomason,et al.  Vector autoregression, structural equation modeling, and their synthesis in neuroimaging data analysis , 2011, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[74]  Mark D'Esposito,et al.  Variation of BOLD hemodynamic responses across subjects and brain regions and their effects on statistical analyses , 2004, NeuroImage.

[75]  Mingzhou Ding,et al.  Evaluating causal relations in neural systems: Granger causality, directed transfer function and statistical assessment of significance , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

[76]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Effective connectivity: Influence, causality and biophysical modeling , 2011, NeuroImage.

[77]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Object familiarity modulates effective connectivity during haptic shape perception , 2010, NeuroImage.

[78]  Baxter P. Rogers,et al.  Analyzing fMRI data with graph-based visualizations of self-organizing maps , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[79]  Vince D. Calhoun,et al.  Dynamic modeling of neuronal responses in fMRI using cubature Kalman filtering , 2011, NeuroImage.

[80]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Multiplexed Echo Planar Imaging for Sub-Second Whole Brain FMRI and Fast Diffusion Imaging , 2010, PloS one.