NeuroImageNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Comparison of undirected frequency-domain connectivity measures for cerebro-peripheral analysis
Joachim GroßiD, Daniel S. KlugeriD, Omid AbbasiiD, Nikolas Chalas, Nadine Steingräber, Christoph DaubeiD, Jan‐Mathijs SchoffeleniD
Abstract
Analyses of cerebro-peripheral connectivity aim to quantify ongoing coupling between brain activity (measured by MEG/EEG) and peripheral signals such as muscle activity, continuous speech, or physiological rhythms (such as pupil dilation or respiration). Due to the distinct rhythmicity of these signals, undirected connectivity is typically assessed in the frequency domain. This leaves the investigator with two critical choices, namely a) the appropriate measure for spectral estimation (i.e., the transformation into the frequency domain) and b) the actual connectivity measure. As there is no consensus regarding best practice, a wide variety of methods has been applied. Here we systematically compare combinations of six standard spectral estimation methods (comprising fast Fourier and continuous wavelet transformation, bandpass filtering, and short-time Fourier transformation) and six connectivity measures (phase-locking value, Gaussian-Copula mutual information, Rayleigh test, weighted pairwise phase consistency, magnitude squared coherence, and entropy). We provide performance measures of each combination for simulated data (with precise control over true connectivity), a single-subject set of real MEG data, and a full group analysis of real MEG data. Our results show that, overall, wppc and gcmi tend to outperform other connectivity measures, while entropy was the only measure sensitive to bimodal deviations from a uniform phase distribution. For group analysis, choosing the appropriate spectral estimation method appeared to be more critical than the connectivity measure. We discuss practical implications (sampling rate, SNR, computation time, and data length) and aim to provide recommendations tailored to particular research questions.
- Citations
- 21
- FWCI
- 1.58
- Field percentile
- top 18%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A comparison of bivariate frequency domain measures of electrophysiological connectivity
Roberto Domingo Pascual-Marqui, Pascal Luc Faber, … Masafumi Yoshimura·bioRxiv·Nov 19, 2018
- Mathematical relations between measures of brain connectivity estimated from electrophysiological recordings for Gaussian distributed data
Guido Nolte, Edgar E. Galindo-Leon, … Andreas Karl Engel·Frontiers in NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Nov 10, 2020
- The more, the merrier: multivariate phase synchronization methods excel pairwise ones in estimating brain connectivity from reconstructed neural sources
- Connectivity-based Meta-Bands: A new approach for automatic frequency band identification in connectivity analyses
Víctor Rodríguez-González, Pablo Nùñez, … Jesús Poza·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Aug 22, 2023
- The impact of ROI extraction method for MEG connectivity estimation: practical recommendations for the study of resting state data.
Diandra Brkić, Sara Sommariva, … Giovanni Pellegrino·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Oct 30, 2023
- Inter-brain functional connectivity: Are we measuring the right thing?
Juan Camilo Avendano-Diaz, Patrick Sothmann, … Lauri T. Parkkonen·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Jul 14, 2026