Individual differences in functional brain connectivity

Emily S. FinnBrainhack NYCChild Mind Institute2 March 2017

Motivation

Group analyses Individual differences

Biomarkers?

MotivationCan we pick someone out of a crowd based on their functional connectivity profile?

2

3

?1

Scan 1 Scan 2

?

?

Functional connectivity analysisBO

LD

Time (s)

1Shen et al., NeuroImage (2013)

268-node parcellation1

1 2681

268

…

Fisher z score

…

Human Connectome Project• 126 healthy subjects (50 sets of twins)• Age 22-35 years old

MotorMt

EmotionEm

LanguageLg

Day 1

Day 2

Working memoryWM

RestingR1

+

RestingR2

+

Human Connectome Project• 126 healthy subjects (50 sets of twins)• Age 22-35 years old

Motor

EmotionLanguage

Day 1

Day 2

Working memoryResting

Resting

Identification experiments

Subj 1 Subj 2 Subj 3 Subj n

…Database: Rest, day 1

Target: Rest, day 2

?

Identification experiments

Subj 1 Subj 2 Subj 3 Subj n

…Database: Rest, day 1

Target: Rest, day 2

r1 r2 r3 rn

Identification experiments

Subj 1 Subj 2 Subj 3 Subj n

…Database: Rest, day 1

Target: Rest, day 2

?

Identification experiments

Subj 1 Subj 2 Subj 3 Subj n

…Database: Rest, day 1

Target: Rest, day 2

r1 r2 r3 rn

Identification results

0.93 0.84 0.63

0.72 0.79 0.67

0.64 0.60 0.54

0.94 0.79 0.84

0.57 0.87 0.75

0.79 0.80 0.88

Rest 1

Working memory

Motor

Rest 2 Language Emotion

Chance: ~0.008

Data

base

Target

Rest 2 Language Emotion

Rest 1

Working memory

Motor

Database

Target

ID rate0.5 1.0

Finn, Shen et al., Nat Neurosci (2015)

Identification results

0.93 0.84 0.63

0.72 0.79 0.67

0.64 0.60 0.54

0.94 0.79 0.84

0.57 0.87 0.75

0.79 0.80 0.88

Rest 1

Working memory

Motor

Rest 2 Language Emotion

Chance: ~0.008

Data

base

Target

Rest 2 Language Emotion

Rest 1

Working memory

Motor

Database

Target

ID rate0.5 1.0

Finn, Shen et al., Nat Neurosci (2015)

Why is this important?‣ subject variance > state variance:

the same brain doing two different things looks more similar than two different brains doing the same thing

‣ could relate to behavioral phenotypes

Predicting fluid intelligence• ability to discern patterns• independent of acquired knowledge

Finn, Shen et al., Nat Neurosci (2015)

Which conditions are best for studying individual differences?

Ground truthr = 0.50

r = 0.13 r = 0.71

r = 0.81

Less identifiable

More identifiable

More similarLess similar

r = 0.01

“Caricature” “Spotlight”

Between-subject similarity

MotorMot

EmotionEmo

LanguageLan

Working memoryWM

RestR1

+

GamblingGam

RelationalRel

RestR2

+

Day 1

Day 2

SocialSoc

HCP: n = 716, 4:12 per condition

Between-subject similarityNodes

Subjects

Edges

SubjectsWorking memoryWM 1 2

Subjects3

Between-subject similarityNodes

Subjects

Edges

SubjectsWorking memoryWM

EmotionEmo

RestR1

+

1 2

Subjects3

Between-subject similarity

Finn et al., NeuroImage, in pressPart of the special issue on Functional Architecture

Between-subject similarity

Behavioral performance:

Finn et al., NeuroImage, in pressPart of the special issue on Functional Architecture

Between-subject similarity

Target

Data

base

Day 1 Day 2

ID ra

te

Day

1D

ay 2

Replicating identification experiments Conditions that make subjects look more similar to one another actually make better databases for identification

Finn et al., NeuroImage, in pressPart of the special issue on Functional Architecture

Chance ~ 0.001

Between-subject similarity

Ground truth

Less identifiable

More identifiable

More similarLess similar

“Caricature” “Spotlight”

Conditions that make subjects look more similar to one another actually make better databases for identification

Naturalistic tasks

Inscapes: Vanderwal et al., 2015

Naturalistic tasks

Session 1

Rest Inscapes Ocean’s 11

Session 2

• n = 34 subjects• mean age 24.4 ± 5.1 years

Naturalistic tasks

Session 1

Rest Inscapes Ocean’s 11

Session 2

Intra- versus inter-subject similarity:

Vanderwal et al., in resubmissionAvailable on biorxiv

Naturalistic tasksTimecourse-based Connectivity-based

Session 1 Session 2 Session 1 Session 2

Vanderwal et al., in resubmissionAvailable on biorxiv

Naturalistic tasksHealthy Brain Network Serial Scanning Initiative:• 13 subjects, 12 scans, 4 conditions (rest, 2 movies, Flanker)

Summary

• Functional connectivity profiles:‣ are reliable within individuals‣ are unique across individuals‣ relate to behavior

• Rest = not the optimal condition?‣ Tasks may improve ratio of within- to

between-subject variability‣ Naturalistic tasks are especially intriguing

…

?

Gambling

Emotion

Relational

Acknowledgments

Constable LabTodd ConstableXilin ShenDustin ScheinostXenophon PapademetrisJessica Huang

Yale PsychologyMarvin ChunMonica Rosenberg

Data and fundingHuman Connectome ProjectNSF Graduate Research Fellowship