Comparison between gradients and parcellations for functional connectivity prediction of behavior
Ru Kong,
Yan Rui Tan,
Naren Wulan,
Leon Qi Rong Ooi,
Seyedeh-Rezvan Farahibozorg,
Samuel Harrison,
Janine D. Bijsterbosch,
Boris C. Bernhardt,
Simon Eickhoff,
B.T. Thomas Yeo
Affiliations
Ru Kong
Centre for Sleep and Cognition (CSC) & Centre for Translational Magnetic Resonance Research (TMR), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore; N.1 Institute for Health and Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Integrative Sciences and Engineering Programme (ISEP), National University of Singapore, Singapore
Yan Rui Tan
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Naren Wulan
Centre for Sleep and Cognition (CSC) & Centre for Translational Magnetic Resonance Research (TMR), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore; N.1 Institute for Health and Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Integrative Sciences and Engineering Programme (ISEP), National University of Singapore, Singapore
Leon Qi Rong Ooi
Centre for Sleep and Cognition (CSC) & Centre for Translational Magnetic Resonance Research (TMR), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore; N.1 Institute for Health and Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Integrative Sciences and Engineering Programme (ISEP), National University of Singapore, Singapore
Seyedeh-Rezvan Farahibozorg
Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Samuel Harrison
Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Janine D. Bijsterbosch
Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, United States
Boris C. Bernhardt
McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Simon Eickhoff
Institute for Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany; Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain & Behaviour (INM-7), Research Center Jülich, Jülich, Germany
B.T. Thomas Yeo
Centre for Sleep and Cognition (CSC) & Centre for Translational Magnetic Resonance Research (TMR), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore; N.1 Institute for Health and Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Integrative Sciences and Engineering Programme (ISEP), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, United States; Corresponding author at: National University of Singapore, CSC, TMR, ECE, N.1 & WisDM, Singapore.
Resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) is widely used to predict behavioral measures. To predict behavioral measures, representing RSFC with parcellations and gradients are the two most popular approaches. Here, we compare parcellation and gradient approaches for RSFC-based prediction of a broad range of behavioral measures in the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) datasets. Among the parcellation approaches, we consider group-average “hard” parcellations (Schaefer et al., 2018), individual-specific “hard” parcellations (Kong et al., 2021a), and an individual-specific “soft” parcellation (spatial independent component analysis with dual regression; Beckmann et al., 2009). For gradient approaches, we consider the well-known principal gradients (Margulies et al., 2016) and the local gradient approach that detects local RSFC changes (Laumann et al., 2015). Across two regression algorithms, individual-specific hard-parcellation performs the best in the HCP dataset, while the principal gradients, spatial independent component analysis and group-average “hard” parcellations exhibit similar performance. On the other hand, principal gradients and all parcellation approaches perform similarly in the ABCD dataset. Across both datasets, local gradients perform the worst. Finally, we find that the principal gradient approach requires at least 40 to 60 gradients to perform as well as parcellation approaches. While most principal gradient studies utilize a single gradient, our results suggest that incorporating higher order gradients can provide significant behaviorally relevant information. Future work will consider the inclusion of additional parcellation and gradient approaches for comparison.