4.7 Article

Using variance information in magnetoencephalography measures of functional connectivity

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 203-212

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.011

关键词

MEG; Functional connectivity; Networks; Beamformer; ICA; Hilbert envelope; Seed based correlation

资金

  1. Leverhulme Trust
  2. Medical Research Council
  3. University of Nottingham
  4. Dr Hadwen Trust
  5. Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research (DHT)
  6. Medical Research Council [G0901321] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. MRC [G0901321] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of magnetoencephalography (MEG) to assess long range functional connectivity across large scale distributed brain networks is gaining popularity. Recent work has shown that electrodynamic networks can be assessed using both seed based correlation or independent component analysis (ICA) applied to MEG data and further that such metrics agree with fMRI studies. To date, techniques for MEG connectivity assessment have typically used a variance normalised approach, either through the use of Pearson correlation coefficients or via variance normalisation of envelope timecourses prior to ICA. Here, we show that the use of variance information (i.e. data that have not been variance normalised) in source space projected Hilbert envelope time series yields important spatial information, and is of significant functional relevance. Further, we show that employing this information in functional connectivity analyses improves the spatial delineation of network nodes using both seed based and ICA approaches. The use of variance is particularly important in MEG since the non-independence of source space voxels (brought about by the ill-posed MEG inverse problem) means that spurious signals can exist in areas of low signal variance. We therefore suggest that this approach be incorporated into future studies. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据