2020
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.24950
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Time‐varying nodal measures with temporal community structure: A cautionary note to avoid misinterpretation

Abstract: In network neuroscience, temporal network models have gained popularity. In these models, network properties have been related to cognition and behavior. Here, we demonstrate that calculating nodal properties that are dependent on temporal community structure (such as the participation coefficient [PC]) in time-varying contexts can potentially lead to misleading results. Specifically, with regards to the participation coefficient, increases in integration can be inferred when the opposite is occurring. Further… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From simulated rs-fMRI signal, time-resolved functional connectivity was computed using tapered sliding windows 15 . For each instance of time-resolved functional connectivity, three global network measures, mean participation coefficient (mean PC), mean temporal participation coefficient (mean TPC), and modularity, were calculated to track dynamic fluctuations between segregated and integrated patterns of functional connectivity 14 , 23 , 24 , 42 . The time series of mean PC, mean TPC, and modularity served as proxies of dynamic fluctuations between segregation and integration in the brain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…From simulated rs-fMRI signal, time-resolved functional connectivity was computed using tapered sliding windows 15 . For each instance of time-resolved functional connectivity, three global network measures, mean participation coefficient (mean PC), mean temporal participation coefficient (mean TPC), and modularity, were calculated to track dynamic fluctuations between segregated and integrated patterns of functional connectivity 14 , 23 , 24 , 42 . The time series of mean PC, mean TPC, and modularity served as proxies of dynamic fluctuations between segregation and integration in the brain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent study 42 proposed TPC by extending PC in Eq. ( 2 ) to improve its interpretability with time-varying community partitions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, time‐varying network centrality may not be related to the nature of static (or time‐averaged) network centrality. Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of time‐varying centrality, as its polarities are temporally not always equal to those of static network centrality (Thompson et al., 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent investigations in time‐varying network centralities have revealed several brain network characteristics. Essentially, while the time‐varying EC of the resting‐state appears to reflect individual differences (Wink, 2019 ), time‐varying PC demonstrates the changes in the network structure with increasing integration of various brain regions (Thompson et al., 2020 ). These centralities represent the diverse characteristics of the brain network.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Employing the event boundaries identified by independent raters in Ben-Yakov and Henson (2018) with a keypress when they felt that "one event [meaningful unit] ended and Here, a node's native community was the one to which it was assigned in Power et al (2011), the study that validated the functional atlas. It is worth pointing out that because our participation coefficient is based on a static community structure, it is not subject to the drawbacks associated with the participation coefficients derived from temporally varying communities (Thompson et al, 2020).…”
Section: Functional Brain Reorganization: Window-to-window Versus Conmentioning
confidence: 99%