How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.070
复制
发表时间：
2016-09
期刊：
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Smith SM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Colclough GL;Woolrich MW;Tewarie PK;Brookes MJ;Quinn AJ;Smith SM
MEG为静息状态连接提供了动态和频谱分辨率，这在fMRI中是不可用的。然而，对于MEG来说，可用的网络估计方法范围很广，而现有的关于使用哪种方法的指导却很少。在本技术说明中，我们研究了许多常用的固定连接测量方法在多大程度上适用于静息状态MEG，用标量波束形成器定位磁源。我们使用的经验标准是，对个体受试者的网络测量应该是可重复的，并且群体水平的连接估计显示出良好的可重复性。使用来自人类连接组项目的公开数据，我们根据这些标准测试了12种网络估计技术的可靠性。我们发现磁场扩散或空间泄漏伪影的影响是深远的，对许多连通性测量造成了重大混淆，并可能人为地夸大一致性测量。在那些对这种效应具有鲁棒性的度量中，我们发现基于相位或相干的度量（如相位滞后指数或相干虚部）的重测可靠性较差。在我们所有的测试中，最一致的平稳连通性估计方法是简单的幅度包络相关和部分相关度量。12种常用网络估计方法的可重复性比较。在组水平、科目水平和科目之间测试了估计的一致性。性能最好的方法是带限功率的相关。方法应校正源间空间泄漏的影响。
MEG offers dynamic and spectral resolution for resting-state connectivity which is unavailable in fMRI. However, there are a wide range of available network estimation methods for MEG, and little in the way of existing guidance on which ones to employ. In this technical note, we investigate the extent to which many popular measures of stationary connectivity are suitable for use in resting-state MEG, localising magnetic sources with a scalar beamformer. We use as empirical criteria that network measures for individual subjects should be repeatable, and that group-level connectivity estimation shows good reproducibility. Using publically-available data from the Human Connectome Project, we test the reliability of 12 network estimation techniques against these criteria. We find that the impact of magnetic field spread or spatial leakage artefact is profound, creates a major confound for many connectivity measures, and can artificially inflate measures of consistency. Among those robust to this effect, we find poor test-retest reliability in phase- or coherence-based metrics such as the phase lag index or the imaginary part of coherency. The most consistent methods for stationary connectivity estimation over all of our tests are simple amplitude envelope correlation and partial correlation measures. Comparison of the repeatability of 12 common network estimation methods. Consistency of estimation tested at group-level, subject-level and between subjects. Best-performing methods are correlations in band-limited power. Methods should correct for the effects of spatial leakage between sources.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Maldjian JA;Davenport EM;Whitlow CT
通讯作者：
Whitlow CT
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Luckhoo, H.;Hale, J. R.;Stokes, M. G.;Nobre, A. C.;Morris, P. G.;Brookes, M. J.;Woolrich, M. W.
通讯作者：
Woolrich, M. W.
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Brookes, Matthew J.;O'Neill, George C.;Barnes, Gareth R.
通讯作者：
Barnes, Gareth R.
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Astolfi, Laura;Cincotti, Febo;Babiloni, Fabio
通讯作者：
Babiloni, Fabio
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Colclough GL;Brookes MJ;Smith SM;Woolrich MW
通讯作者：
Woolrich MW