A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks

Jurgen Hebbink (Corresponding Author), Dorien van Blooijs, Geertjan Huiskamp, Frans S. S. Leijten, Stephan A. van Gils, Hil G. E. Meijer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The growing interest in brain networks to study the brain’s function in cognition and diseases has produced an increase in methods to extract these networks. Typically, each method yields a different network. Therefore, one may ask what the resulting networks represent. To address this issue we consider electrocorticography (ECoG) data where we compare three methods. We derive networks from on-going ECoG data using two traditional methods: cross-correlation (CC) and Granger causality (GC). Next, connectivity is probed actively using single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES). We compare the overlap in connectivity between these three methods as well as their ability to reveal well-known anatomical connections in the language circuit. We find that strong connections in the CC network form more or less a subset of the SPES network. GC and SPES are related more weakly, although GC connections coincide more frequently with SPES connections compared to non-existing SPES connections. Connectivity between the two major hubs in the language circuit, Broca’s and Wernicke’s area, is only found in SPES networks. Our results are of interest for the use of patient-specific networks obtained from ECoG. In epilepsy research, such networks form the basis for methods that predict the effect of epilepsy surgery. For this application SPES networks are interesting as they disclose more physiological connections compared to CC and GC networks.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)405-417
Number of pages13
JournalBrain topography
Volume32
Issue number3
Early online date6 Dec 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 May 2019

Fingerprint

Electric Stimulation
Causality
Epilepsy
Language
Aptitude
Brain
Cognition
Research
Electrocorticography

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D
  • Functional connectivity
  • Single pulse electrical stimulation
  • Cortico-cortical evoked potentials
  • Electrocorticography
  • Cortico-cortical evoked potentials
  • Brain networks

Cite this

Hebbink, Jurgen ; van Blooijs, Dorien ; Huiskamp, Geertjan ; Leijten, Frans S. S. ; van Gils, Stephan A. ; Meijer, Hil G. E. / A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks. In: Brain topography. 2019 ; Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 405-417.
@article{52a7f5398c1f4135a862cac19de301d5,
title = "A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks",
abstract = "The growing interest in brain networks to study the brain’s function in cognition and diseases has produced an increase in methods to extract these networks. Typically, each method yields a different network. Therefore, one may ask what the resulting networks represent. To address this issue we consider electrocorticography (ECoG) data where we compare three methods. We derive networks from on-going ECoG data using two traditional methods: cross-correlation (CC) and Granger causality (GC). Next, connectivity is probed actively using single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES). We compare the overlap in connectivity between these three methods as well as their ability to reveal well-known anatomical connections in the language circuit. We find that strong connections in the CC network form more or less a subset of the SPES network. GC and SPES are related more weakly, although GC connections coincide more frequently with SPES connections compared to non-existing SPES connections. Connectivity between the two major hubs in the language circuit, Broca’s and Wernicke’s area, is only found in SPES networks. Our results are of interest for the use of patient-specific networks obtained from ECoG. In epilepsy research, such networks form the basis for methods that predict the effect of epilepsy surgery. For this application SPES networks are interesting as they disclose more physiological connections compared to CC and GC networks.",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D, Functional connectivity, Single pulse electrical stimulation, Cortico-cortical evoked potentials, Electrocorticography, Cortico-cortical evoked potentials, Brain networks",
author = "Jurgen Hebbink and {van Blooijs}, Dorien and Geertjan Huiskamp and Leijten, {Frans S. S.} and {van Gils}, {Stephan A.} and Meijer, {Hil G. E.}",
note = "Springer deal",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "405--417",
journal = "Brain topography",
issn = "0896-0267",
publisher = "Kluwer Academic/Human Sciences Press Inc.",
number = "3",

}

A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks. / Hebbink, Jurgen (Corresponding Author); van Blooijs, Dorien; Huiskamp, Geertjan; Leijten, Frans S. S.; van Gils, Stephan A.; Meijer, Hil G. E.

In: Brain topography, Vol. 32, No. 3, 30.05.2019, p. 405-417.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Comparison of Evoked and Non-evoked Functional Networks

AU - Hebbink, Jurgen

AU - van Blooijs, Dorien

AU - Huiskamp, Geertjan

AU - Leijten, Frans S. S.

AU - van Gils, Stephan A.

AU - Meijer, Hil G. E.

N1 - Springer deal

PY - 2019/5/30

Y1 - 2019/5/30

N2 - The growing interest in brain networks to study the brain’s function in cognition and diseases has produced an increase in methods to extract these networks. Typically, each method yields a different network. Therefore, one may ask what the resulting networks represent. To address this issue we consider electrocorticography (ECoG) data where we compare three methods. We derive networks from on-going ECoG data using two traditional methods: cross-correlation (CC) and Granger causality (GC). Next, connectivity is probed actively using single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES). We compare the overlap in connectivity between these three methods as well as their ability to reveal well-known anatomical connections in the language circuit. We find that strong connections in the CC network form more or less a subset of the SPES network. GC and SPES are related more weakly, although GC connections coincide more frequently with SPES connections compared to non-existing SPES connections. Connectivity between the two major hubs in the language circuit, Broca’s and Wernicke’s area, is only found in SPES networks. Our results are of interest for the use of patient-specific networks obtained from ECoG. In epilepsy research, such networks form the basis for methods that predict the effect of epilepsy surgery. For this application SPES networks are interesting as they disclose more physiological connections compared to CC and GC networks.

AB - The growing interest in brain networks to study the brain’s function in cognition and diseases has produced an increase in methods to extract these networks. Typically, each method yields a different network. Therefore, one may ask what the resulting networks represent. To address this issue we consider electrocorticography (ECoG) data where we compare three methods. We derive networks from on-going ECoG data using two traditional methods: cross-correlation (CC) and Granger causality (GC). Next, connectivity is probed actively using single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES). We compare the overlap in connectivity between these three methods as well as their ability to reveal well-known anatomical connections in the language circuit. We find that strong connections in the CC network form more or less a subset of the SPES network. GC and SPES are related more weakly, although GC connections coincide more frequently with SPES connections compared to non-existing SPES connections. Connectivity between the two major hubs in the language circuit, Broca’s and Wernicke’s area, is only found in SPES networks. Our results are of interest for the use of patient-specific networks obtained from ECoG. In epilepsy research, such networks form the basis for methods that predict the effect of epilepsy surgery. For this application SPES networks are interesting as they disclose more physiological connections compared to CC and GC networks.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

KW - Functional connectivity

KW - Single pulse electrical stimulation

KW - Cortico-cortical evoked potentials

KW - Electrocorticography

KW - Cortico-cortical evoked potentials

KW - Brain networks

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058087345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1

DO - 10.1007/s10548-018-0692-1

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 405

EP - 417

JO - Brain topography

JF - Brain topography

SN - 0896-0267

IS - 3

ER -