2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15631-z
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic reconfiguration of functional brain networks during working memory training

Abstract: The functional network of the brain continually adapts to changing environmental demands. The consequence of behavioral automation for task-related functional network architecture remains far from understood. We investigated the neural reflections of behavioral automation as participants mastered a dual n-back task. In four fMRI scans equally spanning a 6-week training period, we assessed brain network modularity, a substrate for adaptation in biological systems. We found that whole-brain modularity steadily i… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

19
157
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 188 publications
(177 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
19
157
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, socio-cognitive training, and improvement ToM, may rather relate to complex, cognitively demanding, processing, such as perspective-taking, and therefor relates to the integration of functionally relevant, ToM, brain networks. These observations are broadly in line with our findings at baseline in the functional manifold and underscore the dissociation between attentional, socio-emotional, and socio-cognitive processes, as well as the dissociable functional profiles underlying network segregation and integration (Finc et al, 2020). Indeed, in a previous ReSource study focusing on the analyses of autonomic measurements during engagement in the different types of mental practices of each training module, the Presence module was reported to be more relaxing and requiring less efforts, whereas the two social modules, Affect and Perspective, were associated with increased effort and arousal (Lumma et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…On the other hand, socio-cognitive training, and improvement ToM, may rather relate to complex, cognitively demanding, processing, such as perspective-taking, and therefor relates to the integration of functionally relevant, ToM, brain networks. These observations are broadly in line with our findings at baseline in the functional manifold and underscore the dissociation between attentional, socio-emotional, and socio-cognitive processes, as well as the dissociable functional profiles underlying network segregation and integration (Finc et al, 2020). Indeed, in a previous ReSource study focusing on the analyses of autonomic measurements during engagement in the different types of mental practices of each training module, the Presence module was reported to be more relaxing and requiring less efforts, whereas the two social modules, Affect and Perspective, were associated with increased effort and arousal (Lumma et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…In the reviewed literature, when [γ=1, ω=1] was used, the range of flexibility is typically <0.25 ( Table 1). This discrepancy is likely because previous studies used the MMM (Bassett et al 2011, Bassett et al 2013a, Bassett et al 2013b, Finc et al 2020 (Figure S7). However, when the number of ROIs increases from 200 to 600, values of dynamic reconfiguration measures increase while a higher γ value is required to achieve good ICC values ( Figure S8).…”
Section: Parameter Optimization Based On Test-retest Reliabilitymentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Recently, there has been increased enthusiasm to utilize these methods in the neuroimaging field (Table 1). Specifically, these measures have been used to link network dynamics to inter-individual differences in a broad range of functional domains, including motor learning (Bassett et al 2011, Wymbs et al 2012, working memory (Braun et al 2015, Finc et al 2020), attention (Shine et al 2016), language (Chai et al 2016), mood , creativity (Feng et al 2019, and reinforcement learning (Gerraty et al 2018). Additionally, dynamic network reconfiguration has been suggested as a potential biomarker for diseases, such as schizophrenia (Braun et al 2016, Gifford et al 2020, temporal lobe epilepsy (He et al 2018), and depression (Wei et al 2017, Zheng et al 2018, Shao et al 2019, Han et al 2020, and has been used to predict antidepressant treatment outcome (Tian et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The neural basis of transfer has been poorly understood. Human fMRI studies have produced conflicting results about the effects of cognitive training, suggesting overall increases [13][14][15][16][17][18] , or decreases in activity [19][20][21][22] , or more subtle differences such as changes in network modularity 23,24 . Increases are interpreted as reflecting a higher level of activation or recruitment of a larger cortical area, decreases as suggestive of improvements in efficiency 25,26 .…”
Section: Mainmentioning
confidence: 99%