Considering factors affecting the connectome-based identification process: Comment on Waller et al.

ABSTRACT A recent study by Waller and colleagues evaluated the reliability, specificity, and generalizability of using functional connectivity data to identify individuals from a group. The authors note they were able to replicate identification rates in a larger version of the original Human Connectome Project (HCP) dataset. However, they also report lower identification accuracies when using historical neuroimaging acquisitions with low spatial and temporal resolution. The authors suggest that their results indicate connectomes derived from historical imaging data may be similar across individuals, to the extent that this connectome‐based approach may be inappropriate for precision psychiatry and the goal of drawing inferences based on subject‐level data. Here we note that the authors did not take into account factors affecting data quality and hence identification rates, independent of whether a low spatiotemporal resolution acquisition or a high spatiotemporal resolution acquisition is used. Specifically, we show here that the amount of data collected per subject and in‐scanner motion are the predominant factors influencing identification rates, not the spatiotemporal resolution of the acquisition. To do this, we investigated identification rates in the HCP dataset as a function of the amount of data and motion. Using a dataset from the Consortium for Reliability and Reproducibility (CoRR), we investigated the impact of multiband versus non‐multiband imaging parameters; that is, high spatiotemporal resolution versus low spatiotemporal resolution acquisitions. We show scan length and motion affect identification, whereas the imaging protocol does not affect these rates. Our results suggest that motion and amount of data per subject are the primary factors impacting individual connectivity profiles, but that within these constraints, individual differences in the connectome are readily observable. HighlightsWe investigate effect of spatiotemporal resolution on connectome‐identification.Spatiotemporal resolution does not impact ID rates.Motion and amount of data affect identifiability.Findings are discussed in the context of precision psychiatry.

[1]  R. T. Constable,et al.  Characterizing Attention with Predictive Network Models , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Johann Daniel Kruschwitz,et al.  Evaluating the replicability, specificity, and generalizability of connectome fingerprints , 2017, NeuroImage.

[3]  Dustin Scheinost,et al.  Influences on the Test–Retest Reliability of Functional Connectivity MRI and its Relationship with Behavioral Utility , 2017, Cerebral cortex.

[4]  Mary E. Meyerand,et al.  The effect of scan length on the reliability of resting-state fMRI connectivity estimates , 2013, NeuroImage.

[5]  Kuncheng Li,et al.  Reliability correction for functional connectivity: Theory and implementation , 2015, Human brain mapping.

[6]  O. Andreassen,et al.  Delayed stabilization and individualization in connectome development are related to psychiatric disorders , 2017, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  Prediction as a Humanitarian and Pragmatic Contribution from Human Cognitive Neuroscience , 2015, Neuron.

[8]  Mark A. Elliott,et al.  Impact of in-scanner head motion on multiple measures of functional connectivity: Relevance for studies of neurodevelopment in youth , 2012, NeuroImage.

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

[10]  Andrew T. Drysdale,et al.  Resting-state connectivity biomarkers define neurophysiological subtypes of depression , 2016, Nature Medicine.

[11]  Dustin Scheinost,et al.  Using connectome-based predictive modeling to predict individual behavior from brain connectivity , 2017, Nature Protocols.

[12]  Raag D. Airan,et al.  Factors affecting characterization and localization of interindividual differences in functional connectivity using MRI , 2016, Human brain mapping.

[13]  Yufeng Zang,et al.  Functional brain hubs and their test–retest reliability: A multiband resting-state functional MRI study , 2013, NeuroImage.

[14]  L. Shah,et al.  Reliability and reproducibility of individual differences in functional connectivity acquired during task and resting state , 2016, Brain and behavior.

[15]  M. Chun,et al.  Functional connectome fingerprinting: Identifying individuals based on patterns of brain connectivity , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[17]  Evan M. Gordon,et al.  Functional System and Areal Organization of a Highly Sampled Individual Human Brain , 2015, Neuron.

[18]  Jonathan D. Power,et al.  Recent progress and outstanding issues in motion correction in resting state fMRI , 2015, NeuroImage.

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

[20]  R. Cameron Craddock,et al.  Individual differences in functional connectivity during naturalistic viewing conditions , 2016 .

[21]  M. Chun,et al.  Functional connectome fingerprinting: Identifying individuals based on patterns of brain connectivity , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.