Review Article
Open Access
Issue
Published:
05 December 2023
Open Access
Issue
Published:
05 December 2023
EEG connectivity analysis in infants: A Beginner’s Guide on Preprocessing and Processing Techniques
Keywords:
EEG, functional connectivity, coherence, cross-frequency-coupling, preprocessing pipelines
Cite this article:
Tsolisou D.
EEG connectivity analysis in infants: A Beginner’s Guide on Preprocessing and Processing Techniques.
Brain Science Advances,
2023, 9(4): 242-274.
https://doi.org/10.26599/BSA.2023.9050025
Download citation
182
Views
22
Downloads
Citations
0
Crossref
N/A
WoS
N/A
Scopus
N/A
CSCD
Over the last decades, infantile brain networks have received increased scientific attention due to the elevated need to understand better the maturational processes of the human brain and the early forms of neural abnormalities. Electroencephalography (EEG) is becoming a popular tool for the investigation of functional connectivity (FC) of the immature brain, as it is easily applied in awake, non-sedated infants. However, there are still no universally accepted standards regarding the preprocessing and processing analyses which address the peculiarities of infantile EEG data, resulting in comparability difficulties between different studies. Nevertheless, during the last few years, there is a growing effort in overcoming these issues, with the creation of age-appropriate pipelines. Although FC in infants has been mostly measured via linear metrics and particularly coherence analysis, non-linear methods, such as cross-frequency-coupling (CFC), may be more valuable for the investigation of network communication and early network development. Additionally, graph theory analysis often accompanies linear and non-linear FC computation offering a more comprehensive understanding of the infantile network architecture. The current review attempts to gather the basic information on the preprocessing and processing techniques that are usually employed by infantile FC studies, while providing guidelines for future studies.
menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article
EEG connectivity analysis in infants: A Beginner’s Guide on Preprocessing and Processing Techniques
Abstract
Over the last decades, infantile brain networks have received increased scientific attention due to the elevated need to understand better the maturational processes of the human brain and the early forms of neural abnormalities. Electroencephalography (EEG) is becoming a popular tool for the investigation of functional connectivity (FC) of the immature brain, as it is easily applied in awake, non-sedated infants. However, there are still no universally accepted standards regarding the preprocessing and processing analyses which address the peculiarities of infantile EEG data, resulting in comparability difficulties between different studies. Nevertheless, during the last few years, there is a growing effort in overcoming these issues, with the creation of age-appropriate pipelines. Although FC in infants has been mostly measured via linear metrics and particularly coherence analysis, non-linear methods, such as cross-frequency-coupling (CFC), may be more valuable for the investigation of network communication and early network development. Additionally, graph theory analysis often accompanies linear and non-linear FC computation offering a more comprehensive understanding of the infantile network architecture. The current review attempts to gather the basic information on the preprocessing and processing techniques that are usually employed by infantile FC studies, while providing guidelines for future studies.
Keywords:
EEG, functional connectivity, coherence, cross-frequency-coupling, preprocessing pipelines
References(220)
[1]
Luria AR. The problem of localization of functions in the cerebral cortex[M]// Higher Cortical Functions in Man. Boston, MA: Springer, 1966: 5-38.
[2]
Petersen SE, Sporns O. Brain networks and cognitive architectures. Neuron 2015, 88(1): 207–219.
[3]
Bressler SL, Menon V. Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles. Trends Cogn Sci 2010, 14(6): 277–290.
[4]
Eickhoff SB, Müller VI. Functional Connectivity. In: Brain Mapping: An Encyclopedic Reference, Elsevier, 2015.
[5]
Siebenhühner F, Wang SH, Arnulfo G, et al. Genuine cross-frequency coupling networks in human resting-state electrophysiological recordings. PLoS Biol 2020, 18(5): e3000685.
[6]
Kabbara A, Eid H, El Falou W, et al. Reduced integration and improved segregation of functional brain networks in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Eng 2018, 15(2): 026023.
[7]
Xie WZ, Mallin BM, Richards JE. Development of brain functional connectivity and its relation to infant sustained attention in the first year of life. Dev Sci 2019, 22(1): e12703.
[8]
Lin W, Zhu Q, Gao W, et al. Functional connectivity MR imaging reveals cortical functional connectivity in the developing brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008, 29(10): 1883–1889.
[9]
Fransson P, Skiöld B, Horsch S, et al. Resting-state networks in the infant brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104(39): 15531–15536.
[10]
Grandy TH, Werkle-Bergner M, Chicherio C, et al. Individual alpha peak frequency is related to latent factors of general cognitive abilities. Neuroimage 2013, 79: 10–18.
[11]
Yang X, Zhang N, Schrader P. A study of brain networks for autism spectrum disorder classification using resting-state functional connectivity. Mach Learn Appl 2022, 8: 100290.
[12]
Bernhardt BC, Di Martino A, Valk SL, et al. Neuroimaging-based phenotyping of the autism spectrum. In Social Behavior from Rodents to Humans. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp 341–355.
[13]
Wang MJ, Hu ZS, Liu L, et al. Disrupted functional brain connectivity networks in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from resting-state functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Neurophotonics 2020, 7(1): 015012.
[14]
Dimitriadis SI, Simos PG, Fletcher JΜ, et al. Aberrant resting-state functional brain networks in dyslexia: symbolic mutual information analysis of neuromagnetic signals. Int J Psychophysiol 2018, 126: 20–29.
[15]
Horowitz-Kraus T, DiFrancesco M, Kay B, et al. Increased resting-state functional connectivity of visual- and cognitive-control brain networks after training in children with reading difficulties. Neuroimage Clin 2015, 8: 619–630.
[16]
Di X, Gohel S, Kim EH, et al. Task vs. rest-different network configurations between the coactivation and the resting-state brain networks. Front Hum Neurosci 2013, 7: 493.
[17]
Cole MW, Ito T, Bassett DS, et al. Activity flow over resting-state networks shapes cognitive task activations. Nat Neurosci 2016, 19(12): 1718–1726.
[18]
Miljevic A, Bailey NW, Vila-Rodriguez F, et al. Electroencephalographic connectivity: a fundamental guide and checklist for optimal study design and evaluation. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging 2022, 7(6): 546–554.
[19]
Kajimura S, Margulies D, Smallwood J. Frequency-specific brain network architecture in resting-state fMRI. Sci Rep 2023, 13(1): 2964.
[20]
Hausman HK, O'Shea A, Kraft JN, et al. The role of resting-state network functional connectivity in cognitive aging. Front Aging Neurosci 2020, 12: 177.
[21]
Ellis CT, Skalaban LJ, Yates TS, et al. Re-imagining fMRI for awake behaving infants. Nat Commun 2020, 11(1): 4523.
[22]
Kelsey CM, Farris K, Grossmann T. Variability in infants' functional brain network connectivity is associated with differences in affect and behavior. Front Psychiatry 2021, 12: 685754.
[23]
Jackson AF, Bolger DJ. The neurophysiological bases of EEG and EEG measurement: a review for the rest of us. Psychophysiology 2014, 51(11): 1061–1071.
[24]
Michel CM, Koenig T. EEG microstates as a tool for studying the temporal dynamics of whole-brain neuronal networks: a review. NeuroImage 2018, 180(Pt B): 577–593.
[25]
Kim K, Duc NT, Choi M, et al. EEG microstate features according to performance on a mental arithmetic task. Sci Rep 2021, 11(1): 343.
[26]
Cuevas K, Bell MA. EEG and ECG from 5 to 10 months of age: developmental changes in baseline activation and cognitive processing during a working memory task. Int J Psychophysiol 2011, 80(2): 119–128.
[27]
Saby JN, Marshall PJ. The utility of EEG band power analysis in the study of infancy and early childhood. Dev Neuropsychol 2012, 37(3): 253–273.
[28]
Bhavnani S, Lockwood Estrin G, Haartsen R, et al. EEG signatures of cognitive and social development of preschool children-a systematic review. PLoS One 2021, 16(2): e0247223.
[29]
Bathelt J, O'Reilly H, Clayden JD, et al. Functional brain network organisation of children between 2 and 5 years derived from reconstructed activity of cortical sources of high-density EEG recordings. NeuroImage 2013, 82: 595–604.
[30]
Liu QY, Ganzetti M, Wenderoth N, et al. Detecting large-scale brain networks using EEG: impact of electrode density, head modeling and source localization. Front Neuroinform 2018, 12: 4.
[31]
Abreu R, Simões M, Castelo-Branco M. Pushing the limits of EEG: estimation of large-scale functional brain networks and their dynamics validated by simultaneous fMRI. Front Neurosci 2020, 14: 323.
[32]
Wirsich J, Jorge J, Iannotti GR, et al. The relationship between EEG and fMRI connectomes is reproducible across simultaneous EEG-fMRI studies from 1.5T to 7T. Neuroimage 2021, 231: 117864.
[33]
Tóth B, Urbán G, Háden GP, et al. Large-scale network organization of EEG functional connectivity in newborn infants. Hum Brain Mapp 2017, 38(8): 4019–4033.
[34]
Bastos AM, Schoffelen JM. A tutorial review of functional connectivity analysis methods and their interpretational pitfalls. Front Syst Neurosci 2015, 9: 175.
[35]
Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Albert MS. Effects of age upon interhemispheric EEG coherence in normal adults. Neurobiol Aging 1996, 17(4): 587–599.
[36]
Sauseng P, Klimesch W, Schabus M, et al. Fronto-parietal EEG coherence in theta and upper alpha reflect central executive functions of working memory. Int J Psychophysiol 2005, 57(2): 97–103.
[37]
Basharpoor S, Heidari F, Molavi P. EEG coherence in theta, alpha, and beta bands in frontal regions and executive functions. Appl Neuropsychol Adult 2021, 28(3): 310–317.
[38]
Laptinskaya D, Fissler P, Küster OC, et al. Global EEG coherence as a marker for cognition in older adults at risk for dementia. Psychophysiology 2020, 57(4): e13515.
[39]
Thatcher RW, Walker RA, Giudice S. Human cerebral hemispheres develop at different rates and ages. Science 1987, 236(4805): 1110–1113.
[40]
Thatcher RW, North DM, Biver CJ. Development of cortical connections as measured by EEG coherence and phase delays. Hum Brain Mapp 2008, 29(12): 1400–1415.
[41]
Kühn-Popp N, Kristen S, Paulus M, et al. Left hemisphere EEG coherence in infancy predicts infant declarative pointing and preschool epistemic language. Soc Neurosci 2016, 11(1): 49–59.
[42]
Broomell APR, Savla J, Bell MA. Infant electroencephalogram coherence and toddler inhibition are associated with social responsiveness at age 4. Infancy 2019, 24(1): 43–56.
[43]
Nolte G, Ziehe A, Nikulin VV, et al. Robustly estimating the flow direction of information in complex physical systems. Phys Rev Lett 2008, 100(23): 234101.
[44]
Stam CJ, Nolte G, Daffertshofer A. Phase lag index: assessment of functional connectivity from multi channel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources. Hum Brain Mapp 2007, 28(11): 1178–1193.
[45]
Lachaux JP, Rodriguez E, Martinerie J, et al. Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Hum Brain Mapp 1999, 8(4): 194–208.
[46]
Farahani FV, Karwowski W, Lighthall NR. Application of graph theory for identifying connectivity patterns in human brain networks: a systematic review. Front Neurosci 2019, 13: 585.
[47]
Gabard-Durnam LJ, Mendez Leal AS, Wilkinson CL, et al. The Harvard automated processing pipeline for electroencephalography (HAPPE): standardized processing software for developmental and high-artifact data. Front Neurosci 2018, 12: 97.
[48]
Debnath R, Buzzell GA, Morales S, et al. The Maryland analysis of developmental EEG (made) pipeline. 2020. Available at: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.29.925271v1 (accessed 30 September 2023).
[49]
Fló A, Gennari G, Benjamin L, et al. Automated Pipeline for Infants Continuous EEG (APICE): a flexible pipeline for developmental cognitive studies. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2022, 54: 101077.
[50]
Xie WZ, Toll RT, Nelson CA. EEG functional connectivity analysis in the source space. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2022, 56: 101119.
[51]
O'Reilly C, Larson E, Richards JE, et al. Structural templates for imaging EEG cortical sources in infants. Neuroimage 2021, 227: 117682.
[52]
Lew S, Sliva DD, Choe MS, et al. Effects of sutures and fontanels on MEG and EEG source analysis in a realistic infant head model. NeuroImage 2013, 76: 282–293.
[53]
Hämäläinen JA, Ortiz-Mantilla S, Benasich AA. Source localization of event-related potentials to pitch change mapped onto age-appropriate MRIs at 6 months of age. NeuroImage 2011, 54(3): 1910–1918.
[54]
Gao W, Lin WL, Grewen K, et al. Functional connectivity of the infant human brain: plastic and modifiable. Neuroscientist 2017, 23(2): 169–184.
[55]
Chen BS, Linke A, Olson L, et al. Resting state functional networks in 1-to-3-year-old typically developing children. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2021, 51: 100991.
[56]
Alcauter S, Lin WL, Smith JK, et al. Development of thalamocortical connectivity during infancy and its cognitive correlations. J Neurosci 2014, 34(27): 9067–9075.
[57]
Mariscal MG, Levin AR, Gabard-Durnam LJ, et al. EEG phase-amplitude coupling strength and phase preference: association with age over the first three years after birth. eNeuro 2021, 8(3): ENEURO.0264–ENEURO.0220.2021.
[58]
Long XY, Benischek A, Dewey D, et al. Age-related functional brain changes in young children. NeuroImage 2017, 155: 322–330.
[59]
Dubois J, Benders M, Borradori-Tolsa C, et al. Primary cortical folding in the human newborn: an early marker of later functional development. Brain 2008, 131(Pt 8): 2028–2041.
[60]
Tokariev A, Videman M, Palva JM, et al. Functional brain connectivity develops rapidly around term age and changes between vigilance states in the human newborn. Cereb Cortex 2016, 26(12): 4540–4550.
[61]
Smit DJA, Stam CJ, Posthuma D, et al. Heritability of “small-world” networks in the brain: a graph theoretical analysis of resting-state EEG functional connectivity. Hum Brain Mapp 2008, 29(12): 1368–1378.
[62]
Hu DK, Goetz PW, To PD, et al. Evolution of cortical functional networks in healthy infants. Front Netw Physiol 2022, 2: 893826.
[63]
Gaudet I, Hüsser A, Vannasing P, et al. Functional brain connectivity of language functions in children revealed by EEG and MEG: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci 2020, 14: 62.
[64]
Short SJ, Elison JT, Goldman BD, et al. Associations between white matter microstructure and infants' working memory. Neuroimage 2013, 64: 156–166.
[65]
Cuevas K, Bell MA, Marcovitch S, et al. Electroencephalogram and heart rate measures of working memory at 5 and 10 months of age. Dev Psychol 2012, 48(4): 907–917.
[66]
Bell MA, Fox N. Brain development over the first year of life: relations between electroencephalographic frequency and coherence and cognitive and affective behaviors. The Guilford Press, 1994: 314–345.
[67]
Xiao R, Shida-Tokeshi J, Vanderbilt DL, et al. Electroencephalography power and coherence changes with age and motor skill development across the first half year of life. PLoS One 2018, 13(1): e0190276.
[68]
Zhao TD, Xu YH, He Y. Graph theoretical modeling of baby brain networks. NeuroImage 2019, 185: 711–727.
[69]
St Louis E, Frey L, Britton J, et al. Electroencephalography (EEG): An Introductory Text and Atlas of Normal and Abnormal Findings in Adults, Children, and Infants. American Epilepsy Society, 2016.
[70]
Rudzinski L. Blume’s atlas of pediatric and adult electroencephalography. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW), 2013.
[71]
Marshall PJ, Bar-Haim Y, Fox NA. Development of the EEG from 5 months to 4 years of age. Clin Neurophysiol 2002, 113(8): 1199–1208.
[72]
Perone S, Palanisamy J, Carlson SM. Age-related change in brain rhythms from early to middle childhood: links to executive function. Dev Sci 2018, 21(6): e12691.
[73]
Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 2004, 134(1): 9–21.
[74]
Mognon A, Jovicich J, Bruzzone L, et al. ADJUST: an automatic EEG artifact detector based on the joint use of spatial and temporal features. Psychophysiology 2011, 48(2): 229–240.
[75]
Winkler I, Brandl S, Horn F, et al. Robust artifactual independent component classification for BCI practitioners. J Neural Eng 2014, 11(3): 035013.
[76]
Pion-Tonachini L, Kreutz-Delgado K, Makeig S. ICLabel: an automated electroencephalographic independent component classifier, dataset, and website. NeuroImage 2019, 198: 181–197.
[77]
Leach SC, Morales S, Bowers ME, et al. Adjusting ADJUST: Optimizing the ADJUST algorithm for pediatric data using geodesic nets. Psychophysiology 2020, 57(8): e13566.
[78]
Gramfort A, Luessi M, Larson E, et al. MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data. NeuroImage 2014, 86: 446–460.
[79]
Nolan H, Whelan R, Reilly RB. FASTER: fully automated statistical thresholding for EEG artifact rejection. J Neurosci Methods 2010, 192(1): 152–162.
[80]
Marriott Haresign I, Phillips E, Whitehorn M, et al. Automatic classification of ICA components from infant EEG using MARA. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2021, 52: 101024.
[81]
Castellanos NP, Makarov VA. Recovering EEG brain signals: artifact suppression with wavelet enhanced independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 2006, 158(2): 300–312.
[82]
Naik S, Adibpour P, Dubois J, et al. Structured modulations of ongoing variability by task and development. bioRxiv 2021, .
[83]
Mullen T. CleanLine EEGLAB plugin. Report for the Neuroimaging Informatics Toolsand Resources Clearinghouse (NITRC). 2012.
[84]
Lopez KL, Monachino AD, Morales S, et al. HAPPILEE: HAPPE in Low Electrode Electroencephalography, a standardized pre-processing software for lower density recordings. Neuroimage 2022, 260: 119390.
[85]
EEGLAB – Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience. a. Filtering-EEGLAB Wiki. 2021. Available at: https://eeglab.org/tutorials/05_Preprocess/Filtering.html (accessed 12 April 2023)
[86]
de Cheveigné A, Arzounian D. Robust detrending, rereferencing, outlier detection, and inpainting for multichannel data. NeuroImage 2018, 172: 903–912.
[87]
MNE – MNE 1.4.0 documentation. Segmenting continuous data into epochs. c2023. Available at: https://mne.tools/stable/auto_tutorials/epochs/index.html (accessed 12 April 2023).
[88]
Haartsen R, van der Velde B, Jones EJH, et al. Using multiple short epochs optimises the stability of infant EEG connectivity parameters. Sci Rep 2020, 10(1): 12703.
[89]
Bosch-Bayard J, Biscay RJ, Fernandez T, et al. EEG effective connectivity during the first year of life mirrors brain synaptogenesis, myelination, and early right hemisphere predominance. Neuroimage 2022, 252: 119035.
[90]
Kayser J, Tenke CE. In search of the Rosetta Stone for scalp EEG: converging on reference-free techniques. Clin Neurophysiol 2010, 121(12): 1973–1975.
[91]
Chella F, Pizzella V, Zappasodi F, et al. Impact of the reference choice on scalp EEG connectivity estimation. J Neural Eng 2016, 13(3): 036016.
[92]
Zaveri HP, Duckrow RB, Spencer SS. The effect of a scalp reference signal on coherence measurements of intracranial electroencephalograms. Clin Neurophysiol 2000, 111(7): 1293–1299.
[93]
Qin Y, Xin XW, Zhu H, et al. A comparative study on the dynamic EEG center of mass with different references. Front Neurosci 2017, 11: 509.
[94]
Fein G, Raz J, Brown FF, et al. Common reference coherence data are confounded by power and phase effects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988, 69(6): 581–584.
[95]
Myers MM, Grieve PG, Stark RI, et al. Family Nurture Intervention in preterm infants alters frontal cortical functional connectivity assessed by EEG coherence. Acta Paediatr 2015, 104(7): 670–677.
[96]
Junghöfer M, Elbert T, Tucker DM, et al. The polar average reference effect: a bias in estimating the head surface integral in EEG recording. Clin Neurophysiol 1999, 110(6): 1149–1155.
[97]
Nunez PL, Srinivasan R, Westdorp AF, et al. EEG coherency. I: Statistics, reference electrode, volume conduction, Laplacians, cortical imaging, and interpretation at multiple scales. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997, 103(5): 499–515.
[98]
Smith RJ, Alipourjeddi E, Garner C, et al. Infant functional networks are modulated by state of consciousness and circadian rhythm. Netw Neurosci 2021, 5(2): 614–630.
[99]
Kayser J, Tenke CE. On the benefits of using surface Laplacian (current source density) methodology in electrophysiology. Int J Psychophysiol 2015, 97(3): 171–173.
[100]
Tokariev A, Vanhatalo S, Palva JM. Analysis of infant cortical synchrony is constrained by the number of recording electrodes and the recording montage. Clin Neurophysiol 2016, 127(1): 310–323.
[101]
Wang HE, Bénar CG, Quilichini PP, et al. A systematic framework for functional connectivity measures. Front Neurosci 2014, 8: 405.
[102]
Sakkalis V. Review of advanced techniques for the estimation of brain connectivity measured with EEG/MEG. Comput Biol Med 2011, 41(12): 1110–1117.
[103]
Bakhshayesh H, Fitzgibbon SP, Janani AS, et al. Detecting synchrony in EEG: a comparative study of functional connectivity measures. Comput Biol Med 2019, 105: 1–15.
[104]
Hindriks R. Relation between the phase-lag index and lagged coherence for assessing interactions in EEG and MEG data. Neuroimage Rep 2021, 1(1): 100007.
[105]
Hülsemann MJ, Naumann E, Rasch B. Quantification of phase-amplitude coupling in neuronal oscillations: comparison of phase-locking value, mean vector length, modulation index, and generalized-linear-modeling-cross-frequency-coupling. Front Neurosci 2019, 13: 573.
[106]
González J, Cavelli M, Mondino A, et al. Communication through coherence by means of cross-frequency coupling. Neuroscience 2020, 449: 157–164.
[108]
Thatcher RW, Krause PJ, Hrybyk M. Cortico-cortical associations and EEG coherence: a two-compartmental model. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986, 64(2): 123–143.
[109]
Liberati D, Cursi M, Locatelli T, et al. Total and partial coherence analysis of spontaneous and evoked EEG by means of multi-variable autoregressive processing. Med Biol Eng Comput 1997, 35(2): 124–130.
[110]
Krapavickaitė D. Coherence coefficient for official statistics. Mathematics 2022, 10(7): 1159.
[111]
VR University. Coherence. c2023. Available at: https://vru.vibrationresearch.com/lesson/coherence-signal-analysis/ (accessed 5 April 2023)
[112]
Subramaniyam NP. Factors that Impact Coherence in the EEG. 2018. Available at: https://sapienlabs.org/lab-talk/factors-that-impact-coherence-in-the-eeg/ (accessed 12 March 2023)
[113]
Guevara MA, Corsi-Cabrera M. EEG coherence or EEG correlation? Int J Psychophysiol 1996, 23(3): 145–153.
[114]
Kulaichev AP. The informativeness of coherence analysis in EEG studies: a comprehensive review. In Metrological Research of Methods and Means of EEG Analysis in Science and Medicine. Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International), 2021, pp 2–13.
[115]
Srinivasan R, Winter WR, Ding J, et al. EEG and MEG coherence: measures of functional connectivity at distinct spatial scales of neocortical dynamics. J Neurosci Methods 2007, 166(1): 41–52.
[116]
Nolte G, Bai O, Wheaton L, et al. Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency. Clin Neurophysiol 2004, 115(10): 2292–2307.
[117]
Pascual-Marqui RD, Biscay RJ, Valdes-Sosa PA, et al. Cortical Current source connectivity by means of partial coherence fields. 2011: arXiv: 1108.0251. https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0251
[118]
Carvalhaes C, de Barros JA. The surface Laplacian technique in EEG: theory and methods. Int J Psychophysiol 2015, 97(3): 174–188.
[119]
Pascual-Marqui RD, Biscay RJ, Bosch-Bayard J, et al. Assessing direct paths of intracortical causal information flow of oscillatory activity with the isolated effective coherence (iCoh). Front Hum Neurosci 2014, 8: 448.
[120]
Li JN, Wang ZJ, Frasconi P, et al. Controlling the false discovery rate of the association/causality structure learned with the PC algorithm. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2009, 10: 475-514.
[121]
Knyazev GG, Savostyanov AN, Bocharov AV, et al. Cross-frequency coupling in developmental perspective. Front Hum Neurosci 2019, 13: 158.
[122]
Munia TTK, Aviyente S. Time-frequency based phase-amplitude coupling measure for neuronal oscillations. Sci Rep 2019, 9(1): 12441.
[123]
Aru JH, Aru J, Priesemann V, et al. Untangling cross-frequency coupling in neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2015, 31: 51–61.
[124]
Kostović I, Išasegi IŽ, Krsnik Ž. Sublaminar organization of the human subplate: developmental changes in the distribution of neurons, glia, growing axons and extracellular matrix. J Anat 2019, 235(3): 481–506.
[125]
Kostović I, Radoš M, Kostović-Srzentić M, et al. Fundamentals of the development of connectivity in the human fetal brain in late gestation: from 24 weeks gestational age to term. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2021, 80(5): 393–414.
[126]
Shibata T, Otsubo H. Phase-amplitude coupling of delta brush unveiling neuronal modulation development in the neonatal brain. Neurosci Lett 2020, 735: 135211.
[127]
Moghimi S, Shadkam A, Mahmoudzadeh M, et al. The intimate relationship between coalescent generators in very premature human newborn brains: Quantifying the coupling of nested endogenous oscillations. Hum Brain Mapp 2020, 41(16): 4691–4703.
[128]
Attaheri A, Choisdealbha ÁN, di Liberto GM, et al. Delta- and theta-band cortical tracking and phase-amplitude coupling to sung speech by infants. Neuroimage 2022, 247: 118698.
[129]
Wang XL, Liu HL, Kota S, et al. EEG phase-amplitude coupling to stratify encephalopathy severity in the developing brain. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2022, 214: 106593.
[130]
Wang XL, Liu HL, Ortigoza EB, et al. Feasibility of EEG phase-amplitude coupling to stratify encephalopathy severity in neonatal HIE using short time window. Brain Sci 2022, 12(7): 854.
[131]
Bruns A, Eckhorn R, Jokeit H, et al. Amplitude envelope correlation detects coupling among incoherent brain signals. Neuroreport 2000, 11(7): 1509–1514.
[132]
Canolty RT, Edwards E, Dalal SS, et al. High gamma power is phase-locked to theta oscillations in human neocortex. Science 2006, 313(5793): 1626–1628.
[133]
Worsley KJ, Friston KJ. Analysis of fMRI time-series revisited—again. NeuroImage 1995, 2(3): 173–181.
[134]
Cohen MX. Assessing transient cross-frequency coupling in EEG data. J Neurosci Methods 2008, 168(2): 494–499.
[135]
Colgin LL, Denninger T, Fyhn M, et al. Frequency of gamma oscillations routes flow of information in the hippocampus. Nature 2009, 462(7271): 353–357.
[136]
Tort ABL, Komorowski R, Eichenbaum H, et al. Measuring phase-amplitude coupling between neuronal oscillations of different frequencies. J Neurosci Methods 2010, 104(2): 1195–1210.
[137]
Voytek B, D'Esposito M, Crone N, et al. A method for event-related phase/amplitude coupling. NeuroImage 2013, 64: 416–424.
[138]
Martínez-Cancino R, Heng J, Delorme A, et al. Measuring transient phase-amplitude coupling using local mutual information. Neuroimage 2019, 185: 361–378.
[139]
Witte H, Putsche P, Eiselt M, et al. Analysis of the interrelations between a low-frequency and a high-frequency signal component in human neonatal EEG during quiet sleep. Neurosci Lett 1997, 236(3): 175–179.
[140]
Samiee S. Cross-frequency coupling: methods & what do we know? 2015. Available at: https://www.mcgill.ca/bic/files/bic/cross_frequency_coupling_soheilasamiee.pdf (accessed 10 April 2023)
[141]
Martínez-Cancino R, Delorme A, Kreutz-Delgado K, et al. Computing phase amplitude coupling in EEGLAB: PACTools. In 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE). Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2020, pp 387–394.
[142]
Tadel F, Baillet S, Mosher JC, et al. Brainstorm: a user-friendly application for MEG/EEG analysis. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011, 2011: 879716.
[143]
Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, et al. FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011, 2011: 156869.
[144]
Mundy P, Fox N, Card J. EEG coherence, joint attention and language development in the second year. Developmental Sci 2003, 6(1): 48–54.
[145]
Whedon M, Perry NB, Calkins SD, et al. Changes in frontal EEG coherence across infancy predict cognitive abilities at age 3: the mediating role of attentional control. Dev Psychol 2016, 52(9): 1341–1352.
[146]
Bell MA. Brain electrical activity associated with cognitive processing during a looking version of the A-not-B task. Infancy 2001, 2(3): 311–330.
[147]
Cuevas K, Swingler MM, Bell MA, et al. Measures of frontal functioning and the emergence of inhibitory control processes at 10 months of age. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2012, 2(2): 235–243.
[148]
Nishiyori R, Xiao R, Vanderbilt D, et al. Electroencephalography measures of relative power and coherence as reaching skill emerges in infants born preterm. Sci Rep 2021, 11(1): 3609.
[149]
Bell MA, Fox NA. Crawling experience is related to changes in cortical organization during infancy: evidence from EEG coherence. Dev Psychobiol 1996, 29(7): 551–561.
[150]
Corbetta D, Friedman DR, Bell MA. Brain reorganization as a function of walking experience in 12-month-old infants: implications for the development of manual laterality. Front Psychol 2014, 5: 245.
[151]
Bell MA, Fox NA. The relations between frontal brain electrical activity and cognitive development during infancy. Child Dev 1992, 63(5): 1142–1163.
[152]
Bell MA, Wolfe CD. Changes in brain functioning from infancy to early childhood: evidence from EEG power and coherence working memory tasks. Dev Neuropsychol 2007, 31(1): 21–38.
[153]
Cuevas K, Raj V, Bell MA. Functional connectivity and infant spatial working memory: a frequency band analysis. Psychophysiology 2012, 49(2): 271–280.
[154]
Mundy P, Card J, Fox N. EEG correlates of the development of infant joint attention skills. Dev Psychobiol 2000, 36(4): 325–338.
[155]
Tran XA, McDonald N, Dickinson A, et al. Functional connectivity during language processing in 3-month-old infants at familial risk for autism spectrum disorder. Eur J Neurosci 2021, 53(5): 1621–1637.
[156]
Righi G, Tierney AL, Tager-Flusberg H, et al. Functional connectivity in the first year of life in infants at risk for autism spectrum disorder: an EEG study. PLoS One 2014, 9(8): e105176.
[157]
Duffy FH, Als H, McAnulty GB. Infant EEG spectral coherence data during quiet sleep: unrestricted principal components analysis—relation of factors to gestational age, medical risk, and neurobehavioral status. Clin Electroencephalogr 2003, 34(2): 54–69.
[158]
Grieve PG, Isler JR, Izraelit A, et al. EEG functional connectivity in term age extremely low birth weight infants. Clin Neurophysiol 2008, 119(12): 2712–2720.
[159]
Grieve PG, Emerson RG, Fifer WP, et al. Spatial correlation of the infant and adult electroencephalogram. Clin Neurophysiol 2003, 114(9): 1594–1608.
[160]
Palmer J, Kreutz-Delgado K, Makeig S. AMICA: an adaptive mixture of independent component analyzers with shared components. 2011.
[161]
Saltzberg B, Jr Burton WD, Burch NR, et al. Electrophysiological measures of regional neural interactive coupling. Linear and non-linear dependence relationships among multiple channel electroencephalographic recordings. Int J Biomed Comput 1986, 18(2): 77–87.
[162]
Shellhaas RA, Chervin RD, Barks JDE, et al. Lateralized neonatal EEG coherence during sleep predicts language outcome. Pediatr Res 2022, 91(4): 962–969.
[163]
Shrey DW, Kim McManus O, Rajaraman R, et al. Strength and stability of EEG functional connectivity predict treatment response in infants with epileptic spasms. Clin Neurophysiol 2018, 129(10): 2137–2148.
[164]
Perone S, Gartstein MA. Relations between dynamics of parent-infant interactions and baseline EEG functional connectivity. Infant Behav Dev 2019, 57: 101344.
[165]
Xie WZ, Jensen SKG, Wade M, et al. Growth faltering is associated with altered brain functional connectivity and cognitive outcomes in urban Bangladeshi children exposed to early adversity. BMC Med 2019, 17(1): 199.
[166]
Jeffrey T, Jim K. LabVIEW for everyone: graphical programming made easy and fun (3rd edition) (national instruments virtual instrumentation series). Rev Sci Instrum 2006, 79: 1–1032.
[167]
Levin AR, Méndez Leal AS, Gabard-Durnam LJ, et al. BEAPP: the batch electroencephalography automated processing platform. Front Neurosci 2018, 12: 513.
[168]
Boersma M, Smit DJA, de Bie HMA, et al. Network analysis of resting state EEG in the developing young brain: structure comes with maturation. Hum Brain Mapp 2011, 32(3): 413–425.
[169]
Bassett DS, Bullmore E. Small-world brain networks. Neuroscientist 2006, 12(6): 512–523.
[170]
Micheloyannis S, Pachou E, Stam CJ, et al. Using graph theoretical analysis of multi channel EEG to evaluate the neural efficiency hypothesis. Neurosci Lett 2006, 402(3): 273–277.
[171]
Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009, 10(3): 186–198.
[172]
Mijalkov M, Kakaei E, Pereira JB, et al. BRAPH: a graph theory software for the analysis of brain connectivity. PLoS One 2017, 12(8): e0178798.
[173]
van den Heuvel MP, de Lange SC, Zalesky A, et al. Proportional thresholding in resting-state fMRI functional connectivity networks and consequences for patient-control connectome studies: issues and recommendations. NeuroImage 2017, 152: 437–449.
[174]
Mehraram R, Kaiser M, Cromarty R, et al. Weighted network measures reveal differences between dementia types: an EEG study. Hum Brain Mapp 2020, 41(6): 1573–1590.
[175]
Carpels SMA, Yamamoto Y, Mizuno-Matsumoto Y. Graph theoretical analysis of interictal EEG data in epilepsy patients during epileptiform discharge and non-discharge. Int J Affect Eng 2021, 20(3): 131–142.
[176]
Adamovich T, Zakharov I, Tabueva A, et al. The thresholding problem and variability in the EEG graph network parameters. Sci Rep 2022, 12(1): 18659.
[177]
Hatlestad-Hall C, Bruña R, Liljeström M, et al. Reliable evaluation of functional connectivity and graph theory measures in source-level EEG: how many electrodes are enough? Clin Neurophysiol 2023, 150: 1–16.
[178]
Polver S, Quadrelli E, Turati C, et al. Decoding functional brain networks through graph measures in infancy: the case of emotional faces. Biol Psychol 2022, 170: 108292.
[179]
Omidvarnia A, Fransson P, Metsäranta M, et al. Functional bimodality in the brain networks of preterm and term human newborns. Cereb Cortex 2014, 24(10): 2657–2668.
[180]
Rotem-Kohavi N, Hilderman CG, Liu AP, et al. Network analysis of perception-action coupling in infants. Front Hum Neurosci 2014, 8: 209.
[181]
Hendrikx D, Thewissen L, Smits A, et al. Using graph theory to assess the interaction between cerebral function, brain hemodynamics, and systemic variables in premature infants. Complexity 2018, 2018: 1–15.
[182]
Vinck M, Oostenveld R, van Wingerden M, et al. An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias. NeuroImage 2011, 55(4): 1548–1565.
[183]
He B, Astolfi L, Valdes-Sosa PA, et al. Electrophysiological brain connectivity: theory and implementation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2019: .
[184]
Baccalá LA, Sameshima K. Partial directed coherence: twenty years on some history and an appraisal. Biol Cybern 2021, 115(3): 195–204.
[185]
Rubinov M, Sporns O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. NeuroImage 2010, 52(3): 1059–1069.
[186]
Kruskal JB Jr. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem (1956). In Ideas That Created the Future. The MIT Press, 2021, pp 179–182.
[187]
Hipp JF, Hawellek DJ, Corbetta M, et al. Large-scale cortical correlation structure of spontaneous oscillatory activity. Nat Neurosci 2012, 15(6): 884–890.
[188]
Wang JH, Wang XD, Xia MR, et al. GRETNA: a graph theoretical network analysis toolbox for imaging connectomics. Front Hum Neurosci 2015, 9: 386.
[189]
Pascual-Marqui RD. Discrete, 3D distributed, linear imaging methods of electric neuronal activity. Part 1: exact, zero error localization. 2007: arXiv: 0710.3341. https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3341
[190]
Pascual-Marqui RD. Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 2002, 24(Suppl D): 5–12.
[191]
EEGLAB – Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience. a. Head model. 2021. Available at: https://eeglab.org/tutorials/09_source/Model_Settings.html (accessed 2 May 2023)
[192]
Fieldtrip. Solving the EEG forward problem using BEM and FEM. c2023. Available at: https://www.fieldtriptoolbox.org/workshop/baci2017/forwardproblem/ (accessed 2 May 2023)
[193]
Richards JE, Sanchez C, Phillips-Meek M, et al. A database of age-appropriate average MRI templates. NeuroImage 2016, 124(Pt B): 1254–1259.
[194]
Pascual-Marqui RD. Review of methods for solving the EEG inverse problem. Int J Bioelectromagn 1999: 1(1): 75-86.
[195]
Pascual-Marqui RD, Michel CM, Lehmann D. Low resolution electromagnetic tomography: a new method for localizing electrical activity in the brain. Int J Psychophysiol 1994, 18(1): 49–65.
[196]
Hecker L, Rupprecht R, Tebartz van Elst L, et al. ConvDip: a convolutional neural network for better EEG source imaging. Front Neurosci 2021, 15: 569918.
[197]
Acar ZA, Makeig S. Neuroelectromagnetic forward head modeling toolbox. J Neurosci Methods 2010, 190(2): 258–270.
[198]
Mullen T. Source information flow toolbox (SIFT). Swartz Center Comput Neurosci 2010, 15: 1–69.
[199]
Scott Makeig. Forward and Inverse EEG Source Modeling. 2017. Available at: https://sccn.ucsd.edu/githubwiki/files/eeglab_israel17_forwardinversemods.pdf (accessed 5 Jun 2023).
[200]
Delorme A. ERP source analysis plugin for EEGLAB. 2019. Available at: https://github.com/sccn/erpsource (accessed 17 March 2023)
[201]
Gramfort A, Papadopoulo T, Olivi E, et al. OpenMEEG: opensource software for quasistatic bioelectromagnetics. Biomed Eng Online 2010, 9: 45.
[202]
Dalal SS, Zumer JM, Guggisberg AG, et al. MEG/EEG source reconstruction, statistical evaluation, and visualization with NUTMEG. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011, 2011: 758973.
[203]
Mahjoory K, Nikulin VV, Botrel L, et al. Consistency of EEG source localization and connectivity estimates. NeuroImage 2017, 152: 590–601.
[204]
Pantazis D, Adler A. MEG source localization via deep learning. Sensors 2021, 21(13): 4278.
[205]
Ministry of Defence. Machine Learning with Limited Data. 2020. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941511Machine_Learning_with_Limited_Data_original_version_.pdf (accessed 1 May 2023)
[206]
Reynolds GD, Richards JE. Cortical source localization of infant cognition. Dev Neuropsychol 2009, 34(3): 312–329.
[207]
Despotovic I, Deburchgraeve W, Hallez H, et al. Development of a realistic head model for EEG event-detection and source localization in newborn infants. In 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2009, pp 2296–2299.
[208]
Conte S, Richards JE. Cortical source analysis of event-related potentials: a developmental approach. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2022, 54: 101092.
[209]
Ng B, Reh RK, Mostafavi S. A practical guide to applying machine learning to infant EEG data. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2022, 54: 101096.
[210]
Hyde KK, Novack MN, LaHaye N, et al. Applications of supervised machine learning in autism spectrum disorder research: a review. Rev J Autism Dev Disord 2019, 6(2): 128–146.
[211]
Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Mach Lang 1995, 20(3): 273–297.
[212]
Ho TK. Random decision forests. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition. Montreal, QC, Canada, 2002, pp 278–282.
[213]
Boeve S. Can machine learning capture differences in EEG of infants at elevated likelihood and typical likelihood of Autism?. Ph.D. Thesis, Ghent University, Belgium. 2002
[214]
Pavel AM, O'Toole JM, Proietti J, et al. Machine learning for the early prediction of infants with electrographic seizures in neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Epilepsia 2023, 64(2): 456–468.
[215]
Sharif MS, Naeem U, Islam S, et al. Functional connectivity evaluation for infant EEG signals based on artificial neural network[C]//Arai K, Kapoor S, Bhatia R. Proceedings of SAI Intelligent Systems Conference. Cham: Springer, 2019: 426-438.
[216]
Gibbon S, Attaheri A, Ní Choisdealbha Á, et al. Machine learning accurately classifies neural responses to rhythmic speech vs. non-speech from 8-week-old infant EEG. Brain Lang 2021, 220: 104968.
[217]
Delorme A, Palmer J, Onton J, et al. Independent EEG sources are dipolar. PLoS One 2012, 7(2): e30135.
[218]
Piazza C, Cantiani C, Akalin-Acar Z, et al. ICA-derived cortical responses indexing rapid multi-feature auditory processing in six-month-old infants. NeuroImage 2016, 133: 75–87.
[219]
Thatcher RW, Biver C, McAlaster R, et al. Biophysical linkage between MRI and EEG coherence in closed head injury. NeuroImage 1998, 8(4): 307–326.
[220]
Cardenas VA, Price M, Fein G. EEG coherence related to fMRI resting state synchrony in long-term abstinent alcoholics. Neuroimage Clin 2018, 17: 481–490.
Publication history
Copyright
Rights and permissions
Publication history
Received: 28 November 2022
Revised: 09 February 2023
Accepted: 01 March 2023
Published:
05 December 2023
Issue date: December 2023
Copyright
© The authors 2023.
Rights and permissions
This article is published with open access at journals.sagepub.com/home/BSA
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
FEEDBACK 
TOP