CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 183Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimal trajectories of brain state transitions

Open access
Gu, Shi, Betzel, Richard F., Mattar, Marcelo G., Cieslak, Matthew, Delio, Philip R., Grafton, Scott T., Pasqualetti, Fabio, Bassett, Danielle S.·2017·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.003PMC PMC5489344
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The complexity of neural dynamics stems in part from the complexity of the underlying anatomy. Yet how white matter structure constrains how the brain transitions from one cognitive state to another remains unknown. Here we address this question by drawing on recent advances in network control theory to model the underlying mechanisms of brain state transitions as elicited by the collective control of region sets. We find that previously identified attention and executive control systems are poised to affect a broad array of state transitions that cannot easily be classified by traditional engineering-based notions of control. This theoretical versatility comes with a vulnerability to injury. In patients with mild traumatic brain injury, we observe a loss of specificity in putative control processes, suggesting greater susceptibility to neurophysiological noise. These results offer fundamental insights into the mechanisms driving brain state transitions in healthy cognition and their alteration following injury.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.003

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Conceptual schematic. (A) Diffusion imaging data can be used to estimate connectivity from one voxel to any other voxel via diffusion tractography algorithms. (B) From the tractography, we construct a weighted network in which N=234 brain regions are connected by the quantitative anisotropy along the tracts linking them (see Methods). (C) We study the optimal control problem in which the brain starts from an initial state (red) at time t=0 and uses multi-point control (control of multiple regions; blue) to arrive at a target state (yellow) at time t = T.
Fig. 1 Conceptual schematic. (A) Diffusion imaging data can be used to estimate connectivity from one voxel to any other voxel via diffusion tractography algorithms. (B) From the tractography, we construct a weighted network in which N=234 brain regions are connected by the quantitative anisotropy along the tracts linking them (see Methods). (C) We study the optimal control problem in which the brain starts from an initial state (red) at time t=0 and uses multi-point control (control of multiple regions; blue) to arrive at a target state (yellow) at time t = T.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Optimal control trajectories. (A) We study 3 distinct types of state transitions in which the initial state is characterized by high activity in the default mode system, and the target states are characterized by high activity in auditory (blue), extended visual (green), or motor (red) systems. (B) The activation profiles of all N=234 brain regions as a function of time along the optimal control trajectory, illustrating that activity magnitudes vary by region and by time. Activation can be either positive or negative, and the exact range of values will depend on the initial state, the target state, and the control set. Regions are listed in the following order: initial state, target state, controllers, and others. (C) The average distance from the current state x(t) to the target state x(T) as a function of time for the trajectories from the default mode system to the auditory, visual, and motor systems, illustrating behavior in the large state space. (D) The average control energy utilized by the control set as a function of time for the trajectories from the default mode system to the auditory, visual, and motor systems. The similarity of the curves observed in panels (C) and (D) is driven largely by the fact that they share the same control set. See Fig. S2(B) for additional information on the range of these control energy values along the trajectories. Colors representing target states are identical in panels (A), (C), and (D).
Fig. 2 Optimal control trajectories. (A) We study 3 distinct types of state transitions in which the initial state is characterized by high activity in the default mode system, and the target states are characterized by high activity in auditory (blue), extended visual (green), or motor (red) systems. (B) The activation profiles of all N=234 brain regions as a function of time along the optimal control trajectory, illustrating that activity magnitudes vary by region and by time. Activation can be either positive or negative, and the exact range of values will depend on the initial state, the target state, and the control set. Regions are listed in the following order: initial state, target state, controllers, and others. (C) The average distance from the current state x(t) to the target state x(T) as a function of time for the trajectories from the default mode system to the auditory, visual, and motor systems, illustrating behavior in the large state space. (D) The average control energy utilized by the control set as a function of time for the trajectories from the default mode system to the auditory, visual, and motor systems. The similarity of the curves observed in panels (C) and (D) is driven largely by the fact that they share the same control set. See Fig. S2(B) for additional information on the range of these control energy values along the trajectories. Colors representing target states are identical in panels (A), (C), and (D).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Structurally driven task preference for control regions. (A) Top: Regions with high control efficiency (see Eq. (21)) across all 3 state transitions: from the default mode to auditory, extended visual, and motor systems. Bottom: Scatterplot of the control efficiency with the average network communicability to all 3 target regions (Spearman correlation r = 0.27, p < 4.8 × 10−4). (B–D) Top: Regions with high control efficiency for the transition from default mode to (B) motor, (C) extended visual, and (D) auditory (r=0.36, p = 1.4 × 10−8) targets (top). Bottom: Scatter plot of control efficiency versus normalized network communicability with regions that are active in the target state: motor (r=0.42, p = 2.1 × 10−11), extended visual (r=0.51, p = 1.1 × 10−16), and auditory (r=0.36, p = 1.4 × 10−8). Values of control efficiency in all four panels are averaged over subjects.
Fig. 3 Structurally driven task preference for control regions. (A) Top: Regions with high control efficiency (see Eq. (21)) across all 3 state transitions: from the default mode to auditory, extended visual, and motor systems. Bottom: Scatterplot of the control efficiency with the average network communicability to all 3 target regions (Spearman correlation r = 0.27, p < 4.8 × 10−4). (B–D) Top: Regions with high control efficiency for the transition from default mode to (B) motor, (C) extended visual, and (D) auditory (r=0.36, p = 1.4 × 10−8) targets (top). Bottom: Scatter plot of control efficiency versus normalized network communicability with regions that are active in the target state: motor (r=0.42, p = 2.1 × 10−11), extended visual (r=0.51, p = 1.1 × 10−16), and auditory (r=0.36, p = 1.4 × 10−8). Values of control efficiency in all four panels are averaged over subjects.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Regional roles in control tasks. (A) Cognitive control regions cover a broad swath of frontal and parietal cortex, including medial frontal cortex and anterior cingulate, and are defined as regions included in fronto-parietal, cingulo-opercular, and attention systems (Gu et al., 2015). (B) The number of these regions overlapping with the strongest 87 average, modal and boundary control hubs is approximately 50. Different choices of control strategies result in variation in both (C) trajectory cost and (D) energy cost. Here, HC refers to cognitive control regions, AC refers to average control hubs, MC refers to modal control hubs, and BC refers to boundary control hubs.
Fig. 4 Regional roles in control tasks. (A) Cognitive control regions cover a broad swath of frontal and parietal cortex, including medial frontal cortex and anterior cingulate, and are defined as regions included in fronto-parietal, cingulo-opercular, and attention systems (Gu et al., 2015). (B) The number of these regions overlapping with the strongest 87 average, modal and boundary control hubs is approximately 50. Different choices of control strategies result in variation in both (C) trajectory cost and (D) energy cost. Here, HC refers to cognitive control regions, AC refers to average control hubs, MC refers to modal control hubs, and BC refers to boundary control hubs.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Specificity of control in health and following injury. (A) Theoretically, the brain is fully controllable when every region is a control point, but may not be fully controllable when fewer regions are used to affect control. (B) The regions with the highest values of energetic impact on control trajectories upon removal from the network, on average across subjects and tasks, were the supramarginal gyrus specifically, and the inferior parietal lobule more generally. In general, the healthy group and the mTBI group displayed similar anatomical patterns of energetic impact. (C) Magnitude and standard deviation of energetic impact averaged over regions and tasks; boxplots indicate variation over subjects. Even after removing the single outlier in the healthy group, patients with mTBI displayed significantly lower values of average magnitude of energetic impact (permutation test: p = 1.1 × 10−5) and lower values of the average standard deviation of energetic impact (p = 2.0 × 10−6) than healthy controls.
Fig. 5 Specificity of control in health and following injury. (A) Theoretically, the brain is fully controllable when every region is a control point, but may not be fully controllable when fewer regions are used to affect control. (B) The regions with the highest values of energetic impact on control trajectories upon removal from the network, on average across subjects and tasks, were the supramarginal gyrus specifically, and the inferior parietal lobule more generally. In general, the healthy group and the mTBI group displayed similar anatomical patterns of energetic impact. (C) Magnitude and standard deviation of energetic impact averaged over regions and tasks; boxplots indicate variation over subjects. Even after removing the single outlier in the healthy group, patients with mTBI displayed significantly lower values of average magnitude of energetic impact (permutation test: p = 1.1 × 10−5) and lower values of the average standard deviation of energetic impact (p = 2.0 × 10−6) than healthy controls.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H., Jessell, T.M. et al., 2000. Principles of Neural Science, vol. 4. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 183

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gu, S., Betzel, R. F., Mattar, M. G., Cieslak, M., Delio, P. R., Grafton, S. T., Pasqualetti, F., & Bassett, D. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Bassett, Danielle S.
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
148
Pages
305-317
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.003
PMC
PMC5489344
OpenAlex
W2963186114
Cited by
183
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 13
FWCI
11.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (W911NF-10-2-0022, 1430280, 1R01HD086888-01, 1554488, 1430087, CAREER, 2-R01-DC-009209-11, 1441502, W911NF-14-1-0679)
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (W911NF-10-2-0022, W911NF-14-1-0679, 2-R01-DC-009209-11, 1R01HD086888-01, BCS-1441502, PHY-1554488)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (W911NF-10-2-0022, W911NF-14-1-0679, 2-R01-DC-009209-11, BCS-1441502, PHY-1554488, 1R01HD086888-01)
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ns099348-04, 2r01dc009209-11, 1r01hd086888-01)
  • Office of Naval Research (BCS-1441502, PHY-1554488, W911NF-10-2-0022, W911NF-14-1-0679, CAREER PHY-1554488, 1R01HD086888-01, BCS-1430087, 2-R01-DC-009209-11)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (2R01‐DC‐009209‐11, R01-DC-009209-11, R21MH106799)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01-DC009209)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke ((R01 NS099348)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1R01HD086888-01)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD086888)
  • Army Research Office (1R01HD086888-01, PHY-1554488, W911NF-14–1-0679, BCS-1441502, W911NF-14-1, R01-DC-009209-11, W911NF-10-2-0022, W911NF, 2-R01-DC-009209-11)
  • Army Research Laboratory (W911-NF-10-2-0022, W911NF-14-1-0679, 1R01HD086888-01, PHY-1554488, W911NF, 2-R01-DC-009209-11, BCS-1441502, W911NF-10)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
brain state transitions, network control theory, white matter structure, attention, executive function, mild traumatic brain injury, cognitive states, neural dynamics
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Adult, Algorithms, Attention, Brain, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Energy Metabolism, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Young Adult, Executive Function, Healthy Volunteers, White Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review