Ghost interactions in MEG/EEG source space: A note of caution on inter-areal coupling measures

&NA; When combined with source modeling, magneto‐ (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) can be used to study long‐range interactions among cortical processes non‐invasively. Estimation of such inter‐areal connectivity is nevertheless hindered by instantaneous field spread and volume conduction, which artificially introduce linear correlations and impair source separability in cortical current estimates. To overcome the inflating effects of linear source mixing inherent to standard interaction measures, alternative phase‐ and amplitude‐correlation based connectivity measures, such as imaginary coherence and orthogonalized amplitude correlation have been proposed. Being by definition insensitive to zero‐lag correlations, these techniques have become increasingly popular in the identification of correlations that cannot be attributed to field spread or volume conduction. We show here, however, that while these measures are immune to the direct effects of linear mixing, they may still reveal large numbers of spurious false positive connections through field spread in the vicinity of true interactions. This fundamental problem affects both region‐of‐interest‐based analyses and all‐to‐all connectome mappings. Most importantly, beyond defining and illustrating the problem of spurious, or “ghost” interactions, we provide a rigorous quantification of this effect through extensive simulations. Additionally, we further show that signal mixing also significantly limits the separability of neuronal phase and amplitude correlations. We conclude that spurious correlations must be carefully considered in connectivity analyses in MEG/EEG source space even when using measures that are immune to zero‐lag correlations. HighlightsReliable estimation of neuronal coupling with MEG and EEG is challenged by signal mixing.A number of coupling techniques attempt to overcome this limitation by excluding zero‐lag interactions.Our simulations illustrate that such interaction metrics will still yield false positives.Spurious, or “ghost”, interactions are generally detected between sources in the vicinity of true interacting sources.Signal mixing also severely affects the mutual separability of phase and amplitude correlations.

[1]  B. W. van Dijk,et al.  Opportunities and methodological challenges in EEG and MEG resting state functional brain network research , 2015, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[2]  Ulrich Meyer,et al.  A Graph Algorithmic Approach to Separate Direct from Indirect Neural Interactions , 2015, PloS one.

[3]  Joachim Gross,et al.  Improving the interpretability of all‐to‐all pairwise source connectivity analysis in MEG with nonhomogeneous smoothing , 2011, Human brain mapping.

[4]  M. Hallett,et al.  Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[5]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Cortical Surface-Based Analysis I. Segmentation and Surface Reconstruction , 1999, NeuroImage.

[6]  Bernd Lütkenhöner,et al.  Magnetoencephalography and its Achilles' heel , 2003, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[7]  A. Dale,et al.  Whole Brain Segmentation Automated Labeling of Neuroanatomical Structures in the Human Brain , 2002, Neuron.

[8]  Olaf Hauk,et al.  Comparison of noise-normalized minimum norm estimates for MEG analysis using multiple resolution metrics , 2011, NeuroImage.

[9]  Barrie W. Jervis,et al.  A Fundamental Investigation of the Composition of Auditory Evoked Potentials , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[10]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias , 2011, NeuroImage.

[11]  A. Dale,et al.  Cortical Surface-Based Analysis II: Inflation, Flattening, and a Surface-Based Coordinate System , 1999, NeuroImage.

[12]  Martin Vinck,et al.  The pairwise phase consistency: A bias-free measure of rhythmic neuronal synchronization , 2010, NeuroImage.

[13]  Filippo Zappasodi,et al.  Magnetoencephalography in the study of brain dynamics. , 2014, Functional neurology.

[14]  J. Gordon,et al.  Long-range neural synchrony in behavior. , 2015, Annual review of neuroscience.

[15]  J Gross,et al.  REPRINTS , 1962, The Lancet.

[16]  Karl J. Friston Functional and Effective Connectivity: A Review , 2011, Brain Connect..

[17]  J. Matias Palva,et al.  Localization of Cortical Phase and Amplitude Dynamics during Visual Working Memory Encoding and Retention , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[19]  Christian Windischberger,et al.  Toward discovery science of human brain function , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Katharina Burger,et al.  Random Data Analysis And Measurement Procedures , 2016 .

[21]  Onerva Korhonen,et al.  Sparse weightings for collapsing inverse solutions to cortical parcellations optimize M/EEG source reconstruction accuracy , 2014, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[22]  J. Schoffelen,et al.  Source connectivity analysis with MEG and EEG , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[23]  Olaf Sporns,et al.  Cerebral cartography and connectomics , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[25]  J. Matias Palva,et al.  Hyperedge bundling: A practical solution to spurious interactions in MEG/EEG source connectivity analyses , 2017, NeuroImage.

[26]  Joerg F. Hipp,et al.  Measuring the cortical correlation structure of spontaneous oscillatory activity with EEG and MEG , 2016, NeuroImage.

[27]  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.

[28]  Biyu J. He,et al.  Spontaneous Neural Dynamics and Multi-scale Network Organization , 2016, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[29]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Electrophysiological signatures of resting state networks in the human brain , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Sylvain Baillet,et al.  A Bayesian approach to introducing anatomo-functional priors in the EEG/MEG inverse problem , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[31]  R. Eckhorn,et al.  Amplitude envelope correlation detects coupling among incoherent brain signals , 2000, Neuroreport.

[32]  Joachim Gross,et al.  Good practice for conducting and reporting MEG research , 2013, NeuroImage.

[33]  Matti Stenroos,et al.  A framework for the design of flexible cross‐talk functions for spatial filtering of EEG/MEG data: DeFleCT , 2014, Human brain mapping.

[34]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Measuring functional connectivity in MEG: A multivariate approach insensitive to linear source leakage , 2012, NeuroImage.

[35]  A. Gupta,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to , 1997 .

[36]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Measuring temporal, spectral and spatial changes in electrophysiological brain network connectivity , 2014, NeuroImage.

[37]  J. Palva,et al.  Neuronal synchrony reveals working memory networks and predicts individual memory capacity , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  John W Belliveau,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[39]  W. Drongelen,et al.  Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[40]  Juan L. P. Soto,et al.  A multivariate method for estimating cross-frequency neuronal interactions and correcting linear mixing in MEG data, using canonical correlations , 2016, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[41]  J. Palva,et al.  Discovering oscillatory interaction networks with M/EEG: challenges and breakthroughs , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[42]  Benjamin A. E. Hunt,et al.  Measuring electrophysiological connectivity by power envelope correlation: a technical review on MEG methods , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[43]  A. Kraskov,et al.  Estimating mutual information. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[44]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[45]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  A symmetric multivariate leakage correction for MEG connectomes , 2015, NeuroImage.

[46]  Steven L. Bressler,et al.  Foundational perspectives on causality in large-scale brain networks. , 2015, Physics of life reviews.

[47]  Dynamic Imaging , 1993 .

[48]  Darren Price,et al.  Investigating the electrophysiological basis of resting state networks using magnetoencephalography , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[49]  Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen,et al.  A Tutorial Review of Functional Connectivity Analysis Methods and Their Interpretational Pitfalls , 2016, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

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