Warnings and caveats in brain controllability

Chengyi Tu, Rodrigo P. Rocha, Maurizio Corbetta, Sandro Zampieri, Marco Zorzi, S. Suweis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A recent article by Gu et al. (Nat. Commun. 6, 2015) proposed to characterize brain networks, quantified using anatomical diffusion imaging, in terms of their “controllability” drawing on concepts and methods of control theory. They reported that brain activity is controllable from a single node, and that the topology of brain networks provides an explanation for the types of control roles that different regions play in the brain. In this work, we first briefly review the framework of control theory applied to complex networks. We then show contrasting results on brain controllability through the analysis of five different datasets and numerical simulations. We find that brain networks are not controllable (in a statistical significant way) by one single region. Additionally, we show that random null models, with no biological resemblance to brain network architecture, produce the same type of relationship observed by Gu et al. between the average/modal controllability and weighted degree. Finally, we find that resting state networks defined with fMRI cannot be attributed specific control roles. In summary, our study highlights some warning and caveats in the brain controllability framework.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)83-91
Number of pages9
JournalNeuroImage
Volume176
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Brain
Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Keywords

  • Brain controllability
  • Brain networks
  • Complex networks
  • Null models
  • Whole brain modelling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Cognitive Neuroscience

Cite this

Tu, C., Rocha, R. P., Corbetta, M., Zampieri, S., Zorzi, M., & Suweis, S. (2018). Warnings and caveats in brain controllability. NeuroImage, 176, 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.010

Warnings and caveats in brain controllability. / Tu, Chengyi; Rocha, Rodrigo P.; Corbetta, Maurizio; Zampieri, Sandro; Zorzi, Marco; Suweis, S.

In: NeuroImage, Vol. 176, 01.08.2018, p. 83-91.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tu, C, Rocha, RP, Corbetta, M, Zampieri, S, Zorzi, M & Suweis, S 2018, 'Warnings and caveats in brain controllability', NeuroImage, vol. 176, pp. 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.010
Tu C, Rocha RP, Corbetta M, Zampieri S, Zorzi M, Suweis S. Warnings and caveats in brain controllability. NeuroImage. 2018 Aug 1;176:83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.010
Tu, Chengyi ; Rocha, Rodrigo P. ; Corbetta, Maurizio ; Zampieri, Sandro ; Zorzi, Marco ; Suweis, S. / Warnings and caveats in brain controllability. In: NeuroImage. 2018 ; Vol. 176. pp. 83-91.
@article{c49e22c63c544b31bde4ab064d83b8af,
title = "Warnings and caveats in brain controllability",
abstract = "A recent article by Gu et al. (Nat. Commun. 6, 2015) proposed to characterize brain networks, quantified using anatomical diffusion imaging, in terms of their “controllability” drawing on concepts and methods of control theory. They reported that brain activity is controllable from a single node, and that the topology of brain networks provides an explanation for the types of control roles that different regions play in the brain. In this work, we first briefly review the framework of control theory applied to complex networks. We then show contrasting results on brain controllability through the analysis of five different datasets and numerical simulations. We find that brain networks are not controllable (in a statistical significant way) by one single region. Additionally, we show that random null models, with no biological resemblance to brain network architecture, produce the same type of relationship observed by Gu et al. between the average/modal controllability and weighted degree. Finally, we find that resting state networks defined with fMRI cannot be attributed specific control roles. In summary, our study highlights some warning and caveats in the brain controllability framework.",
keywords = "Brain controllability, Brain networks, Complex networks, Null models, Whole brain modelling",
author = "Chengyi Tu and Rocha, {Rodrigo P.} and Maurizio Corbetta and Sandro Zampieri and Marco Zorzi and S. Suweis",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.010",
language = "English",
volume = "176",
pages = "83--91",
journal = "NeuroImage",
issn = "1053-8119",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Warnings and caveats in brain controllability

AU - Tu, Chengyi

AU - Rocha, Rodrigo P.

AU - Corbetta, Maurizio

AU - Zampieri, Sandro

AU - Zorzi, Marco

AU - Suweis, S.

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - A recent article by Gu et al. (Nat. Commun. 6, 2015) proposed to characterize brain networks, quantified using anatomical diffusion imaging, in terms of their “controllability” drawing on concepts and methods of control theory. They reported that brain activity is controllable from a single node, and that the topology of brain networks provides an explanation for the types of control roles that different regions play in the brain. In this work, we first briefly review the framework of control theory applied to complex networks. We then show contrasting results on brain controllability through the analysis of five different datasets and numerical simulations. We find that brain networks are not controllable (in a statistical significant way) by one single region. Additionally, we show that random null models, with no biological resemblance to brain network architecture, produce the same type of relationship observed by Gu et al. between the average/modal controllability and weighted degree. Finally, we find that resting state networks defined with fMRI cannot be attributed specific control roles. In summary, our study highlights some warning and caveats in the brain controllability framework.

AB - A recent article by Gu et al. (Nat. Commun. 6, 2015) proposed to characterize brain networks, quantified using anatomical diffusion imaging, in terms of their “controllability” drawing on concepts and methods of control theory. They reported that brain activity is controllable from a single node, and that the topology of brain networks provides an explanation for the types of control roles that different regions play in the brain. In this work, we first briefly review the framework of control theory applied to complex networks. We then show contrasting results on brain controllability through the analysis of five different datasets and numerical simulations. We find that brain networks are not controllable (in a statistical significant way) by one single region. Additionally, we show that random null models, with no biological resemblance to brain network architecture, produce the same type of relationship observed by Gu et al. between the average/modal controllability and weighted degree. Finally, we find that resting state networks defined with fMRI cannot be attributed specific control roles. In summary, our study highlights some warning and caveats in the brain controllability framework.

KW - Brain controllability

KW - Brain networks

KW - Complex networks

KW - Null models

KW - Whole brain modelling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046170916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046170916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.010

DO - 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 29654874

AN - SCOPUS:85046170916

VL - 176

SP - 83

EP - 91

JO - NeuroImage

JF - NeuroImage

SN - 1053-8119

ER -