Dazhi Yin1, Kristina Zeljic1, Zhiwei Wang1, Qian Lv1, and Zheng Wang1
1Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China, People's Republic of
Synopsis
Neural basis enabling flexible behavior remains
largely unknown. Based on the spatiotemporal dynamics of intrinsic functional
connectivity, we proposed a probabilistic modeling framework to quantify the
functional flexibility and integration of different brain regions. We then
applied this framework to investigate the functional representation of hand
preference. Our findings revealed higher functional flexibility and integration
for the preferred hand that controls cognitive-motor requirements for skilled
movements.Purpose
To reveal the functional organization underlying human cognitive and
behavioral flexibility at resting state
Methods
We hypothesized that functionally
flexible regions are heterogeneous, supporting multiple cognitive components and temporally integrating information from functionally specialized brain networks
in accordance with task demands. Moreover, a broad body of experimental work
has demonstrated the dynamical organization of resting-state brain activity.1
We therefore proposed that the dynamics of intrinsic functional connectivity are
expressed as a probabilistic configuration for each brain region. Two
metrics were utilized to quantify this probabilistic configuration: (1) a
complexity measure (entropy) reflecting functional flexibility (heterogeneity),
and cross-module probability (CMP) measuring functional integration. This probabilistic
model (Fig.1) includes the following steps:
1. We
adopted the commonly used sliding window approach2
to estimate the dynamic functional connectivity matrices.
2. For
a given brain region i, we reserved
its 5 strongest functional connections at each sliding window. Thus, a
normalized probability distribution p(Cij)
could be obtained for the i’s dynamic
functional connectivity using the following formula: $$p(C_{ij})=\frac{n(C_{ij})}{m\times
nw},j=1,2,...N, and j\neq i$$ where
n(Cij) is the number of
connections between i and j across all time windows; m represents
the number of connections for each sliding window (m=5); and nw denotes the number
of sliding windows.
3. A
complexity measure Hi was defined
based on the probability distribution of region i using Shannon entropy: $$H_{i}=-\sum_{j=1}^Np(C_{ij})\times
\log_{2}{p(C_{ij})}$$ 4. We
assessed CMP by summing the probability of connections between i and regions in the other modules.
Before calculating CMP, we divided the brain network into 6 modules based on
traditional modular analysis.3
Thus, the CMP of region i was
calculated using the formula: $$CMP_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^Np(C_{ij})\mid
M(i)\neq M(j),j=1,2,...N, andj\neq i$$ where
p(Cij) is the probability
distribution for i’s dynamic
functional connectivity; M(·)
denotes the module that region belongs to.
In
order to remove the effect of modular size on CMP, we calculated a corrected CMPi as follows: $$CMP_{i}\mid
corrected=\frac{CMP_{i}}{1+(N-n(i))/N}$$ where
N is number of nodes of the whole
brain network; and n(i) denotes the
size of the module that node i belongs
to.
This framework was applied to resting-state
functional MRI scans (TR=2000ms, TE=30ms, 220 volumes for each scan) acquired from 33
right-handed healthy volunteers (age, mean±sd=34.7±7.8 years) to investigate
the functional representations of hand preference. Scanning was performed on a
Siemens Trio 3.0 Tesla MRI scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Informed
consent was obtained from all subjects or their guardians. This study was
approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of East China Normal University
(Shanghai, China)
Results
We found the left primary motor cortex dominant to handedness most frequently exhibited functional connectivity
with regions in the sensorimotor network and left frontoparietal control
network. In contrast, the right primary motor cortex dominant to non-handedness most frequently
exhibited functional connectivity only with regions in the sensorimotor network (Fig.2).
Furthermore, a paired t test revealed that both functional flexibility (p<0.001)
and integration (p<0.01) of the left primary motor cortex dominant to handedness were
significantly higher than those of the right primary motor cortex dominant to non-handedness (Fig.3).
Discussion
Hand preference denotes the individual
predisposition to consistently use the right or left hand for most types of
skilled movements. Handedness has been attributed to hemispheric asymmetry between
bilateral cortical association areas controlling the cognitive-motor requirements
of skilled movements.4
In particular, frontal and parietal circuits are intimately involved in the
control of goal-directed movements.5, 6 Therefore,
the heterogeneous and integrated function of the contralateral primary motor cortex may
contribute to the skilled movement of the preferred hand.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Hundred Talent Program of the Chinese
Academy of Sciences (Technology) and Strategic Priority Research Program (B) of
the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB02050006) for Z Wang, and grant from
outstanding young talents in the field of frontier project of Shanghai
Institute of life sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2014KIP206) for DZ Yin. The authors also thank all the volunteers for
their participation in this study.References
1. Deco G, Jirsa VK, McIntosh AR. Emerging
concepts for the dynamical organization of resting-state activity in the brain.
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:43-56
2. Allen EA, Damaraju E, Plis SM, et al.
Tracking whole-brain connectivity dynamics in the resting state. Cereb cortex. 2014;24:663-676
3. Newman ME. Modularity and community
structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 2006;103:8577-8582
4. Haaland KY, Harrington DL. Hemispheric
asymmetry of movement. Curr Opin
Neurobiol. 1996;6:796-800
5. Haaland KY, Harrington DL, Knight RT.
Neural representations of skilled movement. Brain.
2000;123:2306-2313
6. Filimon F. Human cortical control of
hand movements: Parietofrontal networks for reaching, grasping, and pointing. Neuroscientist. 2010;16:388-407