2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.09.28.313791
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probabilistic mapping of human functional brain networks identifies regions of high group consensus

Abstract: Many recent developments surrounding the functional network organization of the human brain have focused on data that have been averaged across groups of individuals. While such group-level approaches have shed considerable light on the brain’s large-scale distributed systems, they conceal individual differences in network organization, which recent work has demonstrated to be common and widespread. Here our goal was to leverage information about individual-level brain organization to identify locations of hig… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
24
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
1
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Using this group approach means, of course, that individual differences in the DAN may not be accounted for in our analyses. Although the functional anatomy of the DAN is well conserved across individuals (Dworetsky et al, 2020;Gratton et al, 2018), we nonetheless could have considered alternatives, such as using a localizer scan or templates, to identify the DAN in order to define individual participant ROIs, as we have done in some prior work (Fannon, Saron, & Mangun, 2008). Indeed, some prior decoding studies have defined the DAN at the individual participant level in native space (Liu & Hou, 2013), whereas others have taken approaches similar to our group-level/standard-space method (Zhang & Golomb, 2021).…”
Section: Definition Of Roimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using this group approach means, of course, that individual differences in the DAN may not be accounted for in our analyses. Although the functional anatomy of the DAN is well conserved across individuals (Dworetsky et al, 2020;Gratton et al, 2018), we nonetheless could have considered alternatives, such as using a localizer scan or templates, to identify the DAN in order to define individual participant ROIs, as we have done in some prior work (Fannon, Saron, & Mangun, 2008). Indeed, some prior decoding studies have defined the DAN at the individual participant level in native space (Liu & Hou, 2013), whereas others have taken approaches similar to our group-level/standard-space method (Zhang & Golomb, 2021).…”
Section: Definition Of Roimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While there is a growing movement towards individualized functional communities, group-level partitions are still widely used, as they allow researchers to easily compare results across participants without the confound of differences in the size or number of communities. Further, individualized approaches typically require large amounts of data per individual 9,65,66 , and thus may not always be feasible in developmental studies.…”
Section: Broader Implications and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prioritizing methods that estimate the uncertainty and variation in community assignment, such as soft partitioning approaches that assign weighted probabilities of community assignment to each vertex (e.g., Refs. 27,66 ), will enable us to test whether functional brain network architecture becomes more solidified as children grow up.…”
Section: Broader Implications and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Though ABCD will provide an impressive resource for describing individual variation in network organization over time, “only” 20 minutes of resting state data is collected per participant, which may reduce the ability to maximize the precision of the individualized connectome across all participants. However, the shorter resting state data set is still valuable for precision mapping using new ‘supervised’ methods (Dworetsky et al, 2020; Gordon et al, 2017b) that create individual-specific networks that may only be marginally less precise. Furthermore, as task activity only adds a relatively small amount of variance to global resting-state brain organization (Gratton et al, 2018a), the additional task fMRI data (40 minutes) per participant can be used to generate individual-specific networks using similar amounts of data as prior reports (Cui et al, 2020; Gordon et al, 2017a; Laumann et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%