The identification of interacting networks in the brain using fMRI: Model selection, causality and deconvolution

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is increasingly used to study functional connectivity in large-scale brain networks that support cognitive and perceptual processes. We face serious conceptual, statistical and data analysis challenges when addressing the combinatorial explosion of possible interactions within high-dimensional fMRI data. Moreover, we need to know, and account for, the physiological mechanisms underlying our signals. We argue here that (i) model selection procedures for connectivity should include consideration of more than just a few brain structures, (ii) temporal precedence - and causality concepts based on it - are essential in dynamic models of connectivity and (iii) undoing the effect of hemodynamics on fMRI data (by deconvolution) can be an important tool. However, it is crucially dependent upon assumptions that need to be verified.

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

[2]  W. Singer,et al.  Hemodynamic Signals Correlate Tightly with Synchronized Gamma Oscillations , 2005, Science.

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

[4]  L. Danober,et al.  Pathophysiological mechanisms of genetic absence epilepsy in the rat , 1998, Progress in Neurobiology.

[5]  B. Rosen,et al.  Evidence of a Cerebrovascular Postarteriole Windkessel with Delayed Compliance , 1999, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[6]  S. Bressler,et al.  Beta oscillations in a large-scale sensorimotor cortical network: directional influences revealed by Granger causality. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[8]  Hualou Liang,et al.  Short-window spectral analysis of cortical event-related potentials by adaptive multivariate autoregressive modeling: data preprocessing, model validation, and variability assessment , 2000, Biological Cybernetics.

[9]  Anthony Randal McIntosh,et al.  Contexts and catalysts , 2007, Neuroinformatics.

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

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

[12]  Riitta Salmelin,et al.  Neural representation of language: activation versus long-range connectivity , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  Barry Horwitz,et al.  A link between neuroscience and informatics: large-scale modeling of memory processes. , 2008, Methods.

[14]  N. Logothetis.  What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI , 2008, Nature.

[15]  Pedro A. Valdes-Sosa,et al.  Spatio-temporal autoregressive models defined over brain manifolds , 2007, Neuroinformatics.

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Introduction: multimodal neuroimaging of brain connectivity , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  C. Granger.  Testing for causality: a personal viewpoint , 1980 .

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

[19]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal , 2001, Nature.

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

[21]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Variational Bayesian identification and prediction of stochastic nonlinear dynamic causal models , 2009, Physica D. Nonlinear phenomena.

[22]  Lennart Ljung,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User , 1987 .

[23]  W. Singer,et al.  Testing non-linearity and directedness of interactions between neural groups in the macaque inferotemporal cortex , 1999, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[24]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Investigating directed cortical interactions in time-resolved fMRI data using vector autoregressive modeling and Granger causality mapping. , 2003, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[25]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Assessing interactions among neuronal systems using functional neuroimaging , 2000, Neural Networks.

[26]  Jean-Pierre Florens,et al.  Noncausality in Continuous Time , 1996 .

[27]  Lester Melie-García,et al.  Estimating brain functional connectivity with sparse multivariate autoregression , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Mingzhou Ding,et al.  Analyzing information flow in brain networks with nonparametric Granger causality , 2008, NeuroImage.

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

[30]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM , 2007, NeuroImage.

[31]  W. Hesse,et al.  The use of time-variant EEG Granger causality for inspecting directed interdependencies of neural assemblies , 2003, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[32]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Multivariate Autoregressive Modelling of fMRI time series , 2003 .

[33]  Arnoldo Frigessi,et al.  What can Statistics Contribute to a Causal Understanding? , 2007 .

[34]  Peter König,et al.  On the directionality of cortical interactions studied by structural analysis of electrophysiological recordings , 1999, Biological Cybernetics.

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

[36]  R. Buxton,et al.  Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: The balloon model , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.