Video_1_Comparison of Resting-State Functional MRI Methods for Characterizing Brain Dynamics.MP4 (7.22 MB)

Video_1_Comparison of Resting-State Functional MRI Methods for Characterizing Brain Dynamics.MP4

Download (7.22 MB)
posted on 2022-04-04, 04:04 authored by Eric Maltbie, Behnaz Yousefi, Xiaodi Zhang, Amrit Kashyap, Shella Keilholz

Resting-state functional MRI (fMRI) exhibits time-varying patterns of functional connectivity. Several different analysis approaches have been developed for examining these resting-state dynamics including sliding window connectivity (SWC), phase synchrony (PS), co-activation pattern (CAP), and quasi-periodic patterns (QPP). Each of these approaches can be used to generate patterns of activity or inter-areal coordination which vary across time. The individual frames can then be clustered to produce temporal groupings commonly referred to as “brain states.” Several recent publications have investigated brain state alterations in clinical populations, typically using a single method for quantifying frame-wise functional connectivity. This study directly compares the results of k-means clustering in conjunction with three of these resting-state dynamics methods (SWC, CAP, and PS) and quantifies the brain state dynamics across several metrics using high resolution data from the human connectome project. Additionally, these three dynamics methods are compared by examining how the brain state characterizations vary during the repeated sequences of brain states identified by a fourth dynamic analysis method, QPP. The results indicate that the SWC, PS, and CAP methods differ in the clusters and trajectories they produce. A clear illustration of these differences is given by how each one results in a very different clustering profile for the 24s sequences explicitly identified by the QPP algorithm. PS clustering is sensitive to QPPs with the mid-point of most QPP sequences grouped into the same single cluster. CAPs are also highly sensitive to QPPs, separating each phase of the QPP sequences into different sets of clusters. SWC (60s window) is less sensitive to QPPs. While the QPPs are slightly more likely to occur during specific SWC clusters, the SWC clustering does not vary during the 24s QPP sequences, the goal of this work is to improve both the practical and theoretical understanding of different resting-state dynamics methods, thereby enabling investigators to better conceptualize and implement these tools for characterizing functional brain networks.