2015
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/21/r271
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring electrophysiological connectivity by power envelope correlation: a technical review on MEG methods

Abstract: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. ABSTRACTThe human brain can be divided into multiple areas, each responsible for different aspects of behaviour. Healthy brain function relies upon efficient connectivity between these areas and, in recen… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
96
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 123 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 118 publications
(140 reference statements)
3
96
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another limitation is that we used envelope-based correlations which are known to be strongly influenced by volume conduction. We opted for this measure because it is widely used (Cabral et al, 2014;Hipp et al, 2012;O'Neill, Barratt, Hunt, Tewarie, & Brookes, 2015) and captures predominantly slow power modulations, which is closer to what the BOLD signal would capture. However, we did conduct our analyses using coherence and imaginary part of coherence (Figures S6 and S7) and found no major differences.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another limitation is that we used envelope-based correlations which are known to be strongly influenced by volume conduction. We opted for this measure because it is widely used (Cabral et al, 2014;Hipp et al, 2012;O'Neill, Barratt, Hunt, Tewarie, & Brookes, 2015) and captures predominantly slow power modulations, which is closer to what the BOLD signal would capture. However, we did conduct our analyses using coherence and imaginary part of coherence (Figures S6 and S7) and found no major differences.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Like phase-coupling, amplitude-coupling may not only result from, and thus reflect, neuronal interactions, but may also regulate these interactions by temporally aligning distant processes associated with fluctuating oscillations von Nicolai et al, 2014). Also amplitude-coupling is expressed in wellstructured cortical networks that match known anatomical and functional connectivity (Hipp et al, 2012;Siems et al, 2016), resemble fMRI correlation patterns (Brookes et al, 2011;Deco and Corbetta, 2011;Destexhe et al, 1999;Hipp and Siegel, 2015;Mantini et al, 2007;Nir et al, 2008;O'Neill et al, 2015), and are more stable than phase-coupling networks (Colclough et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2014). Amplitude-coupling is largely driven by amplitude dynamics below 0.1 Hz (Hipp et al, 2012), which may reflect the slow establishment and decay of communicating networks (Destexhe et al, 1999;Leopold et al, 2003;Mantini et al, 2007;Larson-Prior et al, 2011;Hipp et al, 2012;Engel et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With this in mind, a growing body of work has begun to show that, via appropriate modeling of MEG data, networks of electrophysiological functional connectivity can be mapped (27)(28)(29). The rich temporal complexity of MEG signals means that multiple ways to characterize functional connectivity exist (30).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%