Non-linear manifold learning in fMRI uncovers a low-dimensional space of brain dynamics

Large-scale brain dynamics are believed to lie in a latent, low-dimensional space. Typically, the embeddings of brain scans are derived independently from different cognitive tasks or resting-state data, ignoring a potentially large—and shared—portion of this space. Here, we establish that a shared, robust, and interpretable low-dimensional space of brain dynamics can be recovered from a rich repertoire of task based fMRI data. This occurs when relying on non-linear approaches as opposed to traditional linear methods. The embedding maintains proper temporal progression of the tasks, revealing brain states and the dynamics of network integration. We demonstrate that resting-state data embeds fully onto the same task embedding, indicating similar brain states are present in both task and resting-state data. Our findings suggest analysis of fMRI data from multiple cognitive tasks in a low-dimensional space is possible and desirable, and our proposed framework can thus provide an interpretable framework to investigate brain dynamics in the low-dimensional space.

[1]  Dustin Scheinost,et al.  Unified Framework for Development, Deployment and Robust Testing of Neuroimaging Algorithms , 2011, Neuroinformatics.

[2]  Edward T. Bullmore,et al.  Modular and Hierarchically Modular Organization of Brain Networks , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[3]  Dustin Scheinost,et al.  Can brain state be manipulated to emphasize individual differences in functional connectivity? , 2017, NeuroImage.

[4]  Dustin Scheinost,et al.  Task-induced brain state manipulation improves prediction of individual traits , 2018, Nature Communications.

[5]  Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski,et al.  The Dynamics of Functional Brain Networks: Integrated Network States during Cognitive Task Performance , 2015, Neuron.

[6]  V. Calhoun,et al.  The Chronnectome: Time-Varying Connectivity Networks as the Next Frontier in fMRI Data Discovery , 2014, Neuron.

[7]  Jeffrey N. Chiang,et al.  Optimized Brain Extraction for Pathological Brains (optiBET) , 2014, PloS one.

[8]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Spectral grouping using the Nystrom method , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[9]  Dustin Scheinost,et al.  Alterations in Anatomical Covariance in the Prematurely Born , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  Eswar Damaraju,et al.  Tracking whole-brain connectivity dynamics in the resting state. , 2014, Cerebral cortex.

[11]  Byron M. Yu,et al.  Factor-analysis methods for higher-performance neural prostheses. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Estimation of dynamic functional connectivity using Multiplication of Temporal Derivatives , 2015, NeuroImage.

[13]  Matthew T. Kaufman,et al.  Neural population dynamics during reaching , 2012, Nature.

[14]  Drew N. Robson,et al.  Brain-wide neuronal dynamics during motor adaptation in zebrafish , 2012, Nature.

[15]  Essa Yacoub,et al.  The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview , 2013, NeuroImage.

[16]  David A. Leopold,et al.  Dynamic functional connectivity: Promise, issues, and interpretations , 2013, NeuroImage.

[17]  Christoforos Anagnostopoulos,et al.  Decoding Time-Varying Functional Connectivity Networks via Linear Graph Embedding Methods , 2017, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

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

[19]  Jae-Gil Lee,et al.  Trajectory clustering: a partition-and-group framework , 2007, SIGMOD '07.

[20]  Jalil Taghia,et al.  Uncovering hidden brain state dynamics that regulate performance and decision-making during cognition , 2018, Nature Communications.