Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Models of communication and control for brain networks: distinctions, convergence, and future outlook

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Recent advances in computational models of signal propagation and routing in the human brain have underscored the critical role of white-matter structure. A complementary approach has utilized the framework of network control theory to better understand how white matter constrains the manner in which a region or set of regions can direct or control the activity of other regions. Despite the potential for both of these approaches to enhance our understanding of the role of network structure in brain function, little work has sought to understand the relations between them. Here, we seek to explicitly bridge computational models of communication and principles of network control in a conceptual review of the current literature. By drawing comparisons between communication and control models in terms of the level of abstraction, the dynamical complexity, the dependence on network attributes, and the interplay of multiple spatiotemporal scales, we highlight the convergence of and distinctions between the two frameworks. Based on the understanding of the intertwined nature of communication and control in human brain networks, this work provides an integrative perspective for the field and outlines exciting directions for future work.

          Author Summary

          Models of communication in brain networks have been essential in building a quantitative understanding of the relationship between structure and function. More recently, control-theoretic models have also been applied to brain networks to quantify the response of brain networks to exogenous and endogenous perturbations. Mechanistically, both of these frameworks investigate the role of interregional communication in determining the behavior and response of the brain. Theoretically, both of these frameworks share common features, indicating the possibility of combining the two approaches. Drawing on a large body of past and ongoing works, this review presents a discussion of convergence and distinctions between the two approaches, and argues for the development of integrated models at the confluence of the two frameworks, with potential applications to various topics in neuroscience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references221

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks.

          Networks of coupled dynamical systems have been used to model biological oscillators, Josephson junction arrays, excitable media, neural networks, spatial games, genetic control networks and many other self-organizing systems. Ordinarily, the connection topology is assumed to be either completely regular or completely random. But many biological, technological and social networks lie somewhere between these two extremes. Here we explore simple models of networks that can be tuned through this middle ground: regular networks 'rewired' to introduce increasing amounts of disorder. We find that these systems can be highly clustered, like regular lattices, yet have small characteristic path lengths, like random graphs. We call them 'small-world' networks, by analogy with the small-world phenomenon (popularly known as six degrees of separation. The neural network of the worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the power grid of the western United States, and the collaboration graph of film actors are shown to be small-world networks. Models of dynamical systems with small-world coupling display enhanced signal-propagation speed, computational power, and synchronizability. In particular, infectious diseases spread more easily in small-world networks than in regular lattices.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficient Behavior of Small-World Networks

              We introduce the concept of efficiency of a network as a measure of how efficiently it exchanges information. By using this simple measure, small-world networks are seen as systems that are both globally and locally efficient. This gives a clear physical meaning to the concept of "small world," and also a precise quantitative analysis of both weighted and unweighted networks. We study neural networks and man-made communication and transportation systems and we show that the underlying general principle of their construction is in fact a small-world principle of high efficiency.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Netw Neurosci
                Netw Neurosci
                netn
                Network Neuroscience
                MIT Press (One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209USAjournals-info@mit.edu )
                2472-1751
                2020
                2020
                : 4
                : 4 , Focus Feature: Network Communication in the Brain
                : 1122-1159
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [2]Department of Electrical & Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [3]Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [4]Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [5]Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [6]Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [7]Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Riverside, CA USA
                [8]Department of Electrical & Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [9]Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [10]Department of Electrical & Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [11]Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [12]Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [13]Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
                [14]Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM USA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                * Corresponding Author: dsb@ 123456seas.upenn.edu

                Handling Editor: Andrea Avena-Koenigsberger

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6183-4493
                Article
                netn_a_00158
                10.1162/netn_a_00158
                7655113
                33195951
                2f8e4b50-da10-4912-b9ac-0e87447977c4
                © 2020 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For a full description of the license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 14 February 2020
                : 21 July 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Equations: 21, References: 225, Pages: 38
                Categories
                Focus Feature: Network Communication in the Brain
                Custom metadata
                Srivastava, P., Nozari, E., Kim, J. Z., Ju, H., Zhou, D., Becker, C., Pasqualetti, F., Pappas, G. J., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). Models of communication and control for brain networks: distinctions, convergence, and future outlook. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 1122–1159. https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00158

                communication models,brain dynamics,spatiotemporal scales in brain,control models for brain networks,linear control,time-varying control,nonlinear control,integrated models,system identification,causality

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content97

                Cited by20

                Most referenced authors3,765