Institute for Biomagnetism and Biosignal Analysis, University of Münster, Münster, Germany; Otto-Creutzfeldt-Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany; Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Institute for Biomagnetism and Biosignal Analysis, University of Münster, Münster, Germany; Otto-Creutzfeldt-Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Neuroimage. 2021 Dec 15;245:118660. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118660. Epub 2021 Oct 29.
Analyses of cerebro-peripheral connectivity aim to quantify ongoing coupling between brain activity (measured by MEG/EEG) and peripheral signals such as muscle activity, continuous speech, or physiological rhythms (such as pupil dilation or respiration). Due to the distinct rhythmicity of these signals, undirected connectivity is typically assessed in the frequency domain. This leaves the investigator with two critical choices, namely a) the appropriate measure for spectral estimation (i.e., the transformation into the frequency domain) and b) the actual connectivity measure. As there is no consensus regarding best practice, a wide variety of methods has been applied. Here we systematically compare combinations of six standard spectral estimation methods (comprising fast Fourier and continuous wavelet transformation, bandpass filtering, and short-time Fourier transformation) and six connectivity measures (phase-locking value, Gaussian-Copula mutual information, Rayleigh test, weighted pairwise phase consistency, magnitude squared coherence, and entropy). We provide performance measures of each combination for simulated data (with precise control over true connectivity), a single-subject set of real MEG data, and a full group analysis of real MEG data. Our results show that, overall, WPPC and GCMI tend to outperform other connectivity measures, while entropy was the only measure sensitive to bimodal deviations from a uniform phase distribution. For group analysis, choosing the appropriate spectral estimation method appears to be more critical than the connectivity measure. We discuss practical implications (sampling rate, SNR, computation time, and data length) and aim to provide recommendations tailored to particular research questions.
脑-外周连通性分析旨在量化大脑活动(通过 MEG/EEG 测量)与外周信号(如肌肉活动、连续语音或生理节律(如瞳孔扩张或呼吸))之间的持续耦合。由于这些信号具有明显的节律性,通常在频域中评估无向连通性。这就给研究人员留下了两个关键的选择,即 a)用于谱估计的适当度量(即转换到频域)和 b)实际连通性度量。由于没有关于最佳实践的共识,因此已经应用了各种各样的方法。在这里,我们系统地比较了六种标准谱估计方法(包括快速傅里叶变换和连续小波变换、带通滤波和短时傅里叶变换)和六种连通性度量(锁相值、高斯 Copula 互信息、Rayleigh 检验、加权成对相位一致性、幅度平方相干和熵)的组合。我们为模拟数据(具有对真实连通性的精确控制)、一组真实 MEG 数据的单个主体以及真实 MEG 数据的全组分析提供了每种组合的性能度量。我们的结果表明,总体而言,WPPC 和 GCMI 往往比其他连通性度量表现更好,而熵是唯一对偏离均匀相位分布的双峰偏差敏感的度量。对于组分析,选择适当的谱估计方法似乎比连通性度量更为关键。我们讨论了实际影响(采样率、SNR、计算时间和数据长度),并旨在针对特定研究问题提供定制的建议。