功能连接主要是非周期性耦合,而不是振荡耦合。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
N Monchy, J Duprez, J-F Houvenaghel, A Legros, B Voytek, J Modolo
{"title":"功能连接主要是非周期性耦合,而不是振荡耦合。","authors":"N Monchy, J Duprez, J-F Houvenaghel, A Legros, B Voytek, J Modolo","doi":"10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1041-25.2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Functional connectivity (FC) has attracted significant interest in the identification of specific circuits underlying brain (dys-)function. Classical analyses to estimate FC (<i>i.e</i>, filtering electrophysiological signals in canonical frequency bands and using connectivity metrics) assume that these reflect oscillatory networks. However, this approach conflates non-oscillatory, aperiodic neural activity with oscillations; raising the possibility that these functional networks may reflect aperiodic rather than oscillatory activity. Here, we provide the first study quantifying, in two different human electroencephalography (EEG) databases (<i>n</i>=59, 30 females and 29 males; <i>n</i>=103, 62 females and 41 males), the contribution of aperiodic activity on reconstructed oscillatory functional networks in resting state. We also followed the same approach on cognitive task recordings (<i>n</i>=59, 30 females and 29 males) as a complementary analysis. We found that about 99% of delta, theta, and gamma functional networks, over 90% of beta functional networks and between 23 and 61% of alpha functional networks were actually driven by aperiodic activity. While there is no universal consensus on how to identify and quantify neural oscillations, our results demonstrate that oscillatory functional networks may be drastically sparser than commonly assumed. These findings suggest that most FC studies focusing on resting state data actually reflect aperiodic networks instead of oscillations-based networks. We highly recommend that oscillatory network analyses first check the presence of aperiodicity-unbiased neural oscillations before estimating their statistical coupling to strengthen the robustness, interpretability, and reproducibility of FC studies.<b>Significance statement</b> Assessing how brain regions communicate is critical for understanding behavior and cognition. In electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography, neural networks are commonly identified through functional connectivity estimated under the assumption that inter-regional coupling between brain regions reflects oscillatory networks. Our findings demonstrate that a substantial portion of presumed oscillatory networks are instead driven by aperiodic activity, thereby challenging a central methodological assumption in the field. By explicitly disentangling oscillatory and aperiodic components, this work calls for a reassessment of existing approaches, showing that oscillatory networks are far less widespread than commonly assumed, and provides a refined framework to improve the robustness and reproducibility of function connectivity research, with implications for both cognitive and clinical neuroscience.</p>","PeriodicalId":50114,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Functional connectivity is dominated by aperiodic, rather than oscillatory, coupling.\",\"authors\":\"N Monchy, J Duprez, J-F Houvenaghel, A Legros, B Voytek, J Modolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1041-25.2025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Functional connectivity (FC) has attracted significant interest in the identification of specific circuits underlying brain (dys-)function. Classical analyses to estimate FC (<i>i.e</i>, filtering electrophysiological signals in canonical frequency bands and using connectivity metrics) assume that these reflect oscillatory networks. However, this approach conflates non-oscillatory, aperiodic neural activity with oscillations; raising the possibility that these functional networks may reflect aperiodic rather than oscillatory activity. Here, we provide the first study quantifying, in two different human electroencephalography (EEG) databases (<i>n</i>=59, 30 females and 29 males; <i>n</i>=103, 62 females and 41 males), the contribution of aperiodic activity on reconstructed oscillatory functional networks in resting state. We also followed the same approach on cognitive task recordings (<i>n</i>=59, 30 females and 29 males) as a complementary analysis. We found that about 99% of delta, theta, and gamma functional networks, over 90% of beta functional networks and between 23 and 61% of alpha functional networks were actually driven by aperiodic activity. While there is no universal consensus on how to identify and quantify neural oscillations, our results demonstrate that oscillatory functional networks may be drastically sparser than commonly assumed. These findings suggest that most FC studies focusing on resting state data actually reflect aperiodic networks instead of oscillations-based networks. We highly recommend that oscillatory network analyses first check the presence of aperiodicity-unbiased neural oscillations before estimating their statistical coupling to strengthen the robustness, interpretability, and reproducibility of FC studies.<b>Significance statement</b> Assessing how brain regions communicate is critical for understanding behavior and cognition. In electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography, neural networks are commonly identified through functional connectivity estimated under the assumption that inter-regional coupling between brain regions reflects oscillatory networks. Our findings demonstrate that a substantial portion of presumed oscillatory networks are instead driven by aperiodic activity, thereby challenging a central methodological assumption in the field. By explicitly disentangling oscillatory and aperiodic components, this work calls for a reassessment of existing approaches, showing that oscillatory networks are far less widespread than commonly assumed, and provides a refined framework to improve the robustness and reproducibility of function connectivity research, with implications for both cognitive and clinical neuroscience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1041-25.2025\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1041-25.2025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

功能连接(FC)在识别大脑(天)功能的特定电路方面引起了极大的兴趣。估计FC的经典分析(即,在规范频带中过滤电生理信号并使用连接度量)假设这些反映振荡网络。然而,这种方法将非振荡、非周期的神经活动与振荡混为一谈;提出这些功能网络可能反映非周期性而不是振荡活动的可能性。在此,我们首次在两个不同的人类脑电图(EEG)数据库(n=59, 30名女性和29名男性;n=103, 62名女性和41名男性)中定量研究了静息状态下非周期性活动对重建振荡功能网络的贡献。我们还对认知任务记录(n=59, 30名女性和29名男性)采用了相同的方法作为补充分析。我们发现大约99%的delta, theta和gamma功能网络,超过90%的beta功能网络和23%到61%的alpha功能网络实际上是由非周期性活动驱动的。虽然在如何识别和量化神经振荡方面没有普遍的共识,但我们的研究结果表明,振荡功能网络可能比通常假设的要稀疏得多。这些发现表明,大多数关注静息状态数据的FC研究实际上反映了非周期网络,而不是基于振荡的网络。我们强烈建议振荡网络分析首先检查非周期性无偏神经振荡的存在,然后再估计它们的统计耦合,以加强FC研究的稳健性、可解释性和可重复性。评估大脑各区域如何沟通是理解行为和认知的关键。在脑电图和脑磁图中,神经网络通常是通过假设脑区域间耦合反映振荡网络来估计功能连通性来识别的。我们的研究结果表明,假设的振荡网络的很大一部分是由非周期活动驱动的,从而挑战了该领域的中心方法假设。通过明确地分离振荡和非周期成分,这项工作要求对现有方法进行重新评估,表明振荡网络远没有通常假设的那么广泛,并提供了一个完善的框架,以提高功能连接研究的稳健性和可重复性,对认知和临床神经科学都有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Functional connectivity is dominated by aperiodic, rather than oscillatory, coupling.

Functional connectivity (FC) has attracted significant interest in the identification of specific circuits underlying brain (dys-)function. Classical analyses to estimate FC (i.e, filtering electrophysiological signals in canonical frequency bands and using connectivity metrics) assume that these reflect oscillatory networks. However, this approach conflates non-oscillatory, aperiodic neural activity with oscillations; raising the possibility that these functional networks may reflect aperiodic rather than oscillatory activity. Here, we provide the first study quantifying, in two different human electroencephalography (EEG) databases (n=59, 30 females and 29 males; n=103, 62 females and 41 males), the contribution of aperiodic activity on reconstructed oscillatory functional networks in resting state. We also followed the same approach on cognitive task recordings (n=59, 30 females and 29 males) as a complementary analysis. We found that about 99% of delta, theta, and gamma functional networks, over 90% of beta functional networks and between 23 and 61% of alpha functional networks were actually driven by aperiodic activity. While there is no universal consensus on how to identify and quantify neural oscillations, our results demonstrate that oscillatory functional networks may be drastically sparser than commonly assumed. These findings suggest that most FC studies focusing on resting state data actually reflect aperiodic networks instead of oscillations-based networks. We highly recommend that oscillatory network analyses first check the presence of aperiodicity-unbiased neural oscillations before estimating their statistical coupling to strengthen the robustness, interpretability, and reproducibility of FC studies.Significance statement Assessing how brain regions communicate is critical for understanding behavior and cognition. In electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography, neural networks are commonly identified through functional connectivity estimated under the assumption that inter-regional coupling between brain regions reflects oscillatory networks. Our findings demonstrate that a substantial portion of presumed oscillatory networks are instead driven by aperiodic activity, thereby challenging a central methodological assumption in the field. By explicitly disentangling oscillatory and aperiodic components, this work calls for a reassessment of existing approaches, showing that oscillatory networks are far less widespread than commonly assumed, and provides a refined framework to improve the robustness and reproducibility of function connectivity research, with implications for both cognitive and clinical neuroscience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
1164
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: JNeurosci (ISSN 0270-6474) is an official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. It is published weekly by the Society, fifty weeks a year, one volume a year. JNeurosci publishes papers on a broad range of topics of general interest to those working on the nervous system. Authors now have an Open Choice option for their published articles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信