Abstract
Understanding how one brain region exerts influence over another in vivo is profoundly constrained by models used to infer or predict directed connectivity. Although such neural interactions rely on the anatomy of the brain, it remains unclear whether, at the macroscale, structural (or anatomical) connectivity provides useful constraints on models of directed connectivity. Here, we review the current state of research on this question, highlighting a key distinction between inference-based effective connectivity and prediction-based directed functional connectivity. We explore the methods via which structural connectivity has been integrated into directed connectivity models: through prior distributions, fixed parameters in state-space models and inputs to structure learning algorithms. Although the evidence suggests that integrating structural connectivity substantially improves directed connectivity models, assessments of reliability and out-of-sample validity are lacking. We conclude this Review with a strategy for future research that addresses current challenges and identifies opportunities for advancing the integration of structural and directed connectivity to ultimately improve understanding of the brain in health and disease.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Change institution
Buy or subscribe
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Learn more
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Learn more
Buy this article
Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Additional access options:
Log in
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Read our FAQs
Contact customer support
Fig. 1: Generative and generic state-space models used in the context of functional MRI.
Fig. 2: Bayesian, embedded and machine-learning-based approaches to structurally informing directed connectivity models.
Fig. 3: Emerging directions for structurally informed models of directed connectivity.
References
Finn, E. S., Poldrack, R. A. & Shine, J. M. Functional neuroimaging as a catalyst for integrated neuroscience. Nature 623, 263–273 (2023).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Uludağ, K. & Roebroeck, A. General overview on the merits of multimodal neuroimaging data fusion. NeuroImage 102, 3–10 (2014).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Reid, A. T. et al. Advancing functional connectivity research from association to causation. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1751–1760 (2019).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J. Functional and effective connectivity: a review. Brain Connect. 1, 13–36 (2011).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Zhang, F. et al. Quantitative mapping of the brain’s structural connectivity using diffusion MRI tractography: a review. NeuroImage 249, 118870 (2022).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Suárez, L. E., Markello, R. D., Betzel, R. F. & Misic, B. Linking structure and function in macroscale brain networks. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 302–315 (2020).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fotiadis, P. et al. Structure–function coupling in macroscale human brain networks. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 25, 688–704 (2024).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Seguin, C., Sporns, O. & Zalesky, A. Brain network communication: concepts, models and applications. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 557–574 (2023).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ji, J. et al. A survey on brain effective connectivity network learning. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 34, 1879–1899 (2023).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Downar, J., Siddiqi, S. H., Mitra, A., Williams, N. & Liston, C. Mechanisms of action of TMS in the treatment of depression. in Emerging Neurobiology of Antidepressant Treatments (eds Browning, M., Cowen, P. J. & Sharp, T.) Vol. 66, 233–277 (Springer International Publishing, 2024).
Wein, S. et al. Brain connectivity studies on structure–function relationships: a short survey with an emphasis on machine learning. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2021, 1–31 (2021).
Google Scholar
Stephan, K. E., Tittgemeyer, M., Knösche, T. R., Moran, R. J. & Friston, K. J. Tractography-based priors for dynamic causal models. NeuroImage 47, 1628–1638 (2009).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Honey, C. J. et al. Predicting human resting-state functional connectivity from structural connectivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 2035–2040 (2009).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Damoiseaux, J. S. & Greicius, M. D. Greater than the sum of its parts: a review of studies combining structural connectivity and resting-state functional connectivity. Brain Struct. Funct. 213, 525–533 (2009).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Seguin, C., Razi, A. & Zalesky, A. Inferring neural signalling directionality from undirected structural connectomes. Nat. Commun. 10, 4289 (2019).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Seguin, C. et al. Communication dynamics in the human connectome shape the cortex-wide propagation of direct electrical stimulation. Neuron 111, 1391–1401.e5 (2023).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. Causal modelling and brain connectivity in functional magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000033 (2009).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
Beckmann, C. F., DeLuca, M., Devlin, J. T. & Smith, S. M. Investigations into resting-state connectivity using independent component analysis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 1001–1013 (2005).
Google Scholar
Calhoun, V. D., Adali, T., Pearlson, G. D. & Pekar, J. J. A method for making group inferences from functional MRI data using independent component analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 14, 140–151 (2001).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Breakspear, M. ‘Dynamic’ connectivity in neural systems: theoretical and empirical considerations. Neuroinformatics 2, 205–226 (2004).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. R. & Gonzalez-Lima, F. Structural equation modeling and its application to network analysis in functional brain imaging. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2, 2–22 (1994).
Google Scholar
Ozaki, T. Time Series Modeling of Neuroscience Data. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11527 (CRC Press, 2012).
Razi, A. & Friston, K. J. The connected brain: causality, models, and intrinsic dynamics. IEEE Signal. Process. Mag. 33, 14–35 (2016).
Google Scholar
Valdes-Sosa, P. A., Roebroeck, A., Daunizeau, J. & Friston, K. Effective connectivity: influence, causality and biophysical modeling. NeuroImage 58, 339–361 (2011).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sultana, T. et al. Neural mechanisms of emotional health in traumatic brain injury patients undergoing rTMS treatment. Mol. Psychiatryhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-023-02159-z (2023).
Barnett, L., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., Carhart-Harris, R. L. & Seth, A. K. Decreased directed functional connectivity in the psychedelic state. NeuroImage 209, 116462 (2020).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ou, J. et al. Characterizing and differentiating brain state dynamics via hidden Markov models. Brain Topogr. 28, 666–679 (2015).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gerstein, G. L., Bedenbaugh, P. & Aertsen, A. M. H. J. Neuronal assemblies. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 36, 4–14 (1989).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Aertsen, A. M., Gerstein, G. L., Habib, M. K. & Palm, G. Dynamics of neuronal firing correlation: modulation of ‘effective connectivity’. J. Neurophysiol. 61, 900–917 (1989).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L., Causes and conditions. Am. Philos. Q. 2, 245–264 (1965).
Google Scholar
Stephan, K. E., Weiskopf, N., Drysdale, P. M., Robinson, P. A. & Friston, K. J. Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM. NeuroImage 38, 387–401 (2007).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Daunizeau, J., Stephan, K. E. & Friston, K. J. Stochastic dynamic causal modelling of fMRI data: should we care about neural noise? NeuroImage 62, 464–481 (2012).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Aoki, M. State Space Modeling of Time Series (Springer, 1990).
Peters, J., Bühlmann, P. & Meinshausen, N. Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 78, 947–1012 (2016).
Google Scholar
Bzdok, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. Exploration, inference, and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine. Trends Neurosci. 42, 251–262 (2019).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bzdok, D., Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. Statistics versus machine learning. Nat. Methods 15, 233–234 (2018).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Razi, A. et al. Large-scale DCMs for resting-state fMRI. Netw. Neurosci. 1, 222–241 (2017).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Stephan, K. E. et al. Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling. NeuroImage 49, 3099–3109 (2010).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lee, P. M. Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction (Wiley, 2012).
Friston, K. J., Harrison, L. & Penny, W. Dynamic causal modelling. NeuroImage 19, 1273–1302 (2003).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Friston, K., Mattout, J., Trujillo-Barreto, N., Ashburner, J. & Penny, W. Variational free energy and the Laplace approximation. NeuroImage 34, 220–234 (2007).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Zeidman, P., Friston, K. & Parr, T. A primer on variational Laplace (VL). NeuroImage 279, 120310 (2023).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Harrison, L., Penny, W. D. & Friston, K. Multivariate autoregressive modeling of fMRI time series. NeuroImage 19, 1477–1491 (2003).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wen, X., Rangarajan, G. & Ding, M. Is Granger causality a viable technique for analyzing fMRI data? PLoS ONE 8, e67428 (2013).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Grassmann, G. New considerations on the validity of the Wiener–Granger causality test. Heliyon 6, e05208 (2020).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Wiener, N. The theory of prediction. in Modern Mathematics for the Engineer (ed. Beckenbach, E. F.) 165–187 (McGraw-Hill, 1956).
Granger, C. W. J. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37, 424 (1969).
Google Scholar
Schreiber, T. Measuring information transfer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 461–464 (2000).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bossomaier, T., Barnett, L., Harré, M. & Lizier, J. T. An Introduction to Transfer Entropy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43222-9 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
Nagle, A. et al. High-dimensional multivariate autoregressive model estimation of human electrophysiological data using fMRI priors. NeuroImage 277, 120211 (2023).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Haufe, S. et al. On the interpretation of weight vectors of linear models in multivariate neuroimaging. NeuroImage 87, 96–110 (2014).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Aguirre, G. K., Zarahn, E. & D’Esposito, M. The variability of human, BOLD hemodynamic responses. NeuroImage 8, 360–369 (1998).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Handwerker, D. A., Ollinger, J. M. & D’Esposito, M. Variation of BOLD hemodynamic responses across subjects and brain regions and their effects on statistical analyses. NeuroImage 21, 1639–1651 (2004).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Schilling, K. G. et al. Anomalous and heterogeneous characteristics of the BOLD hemodynamic response function in white matter. Cereb. Cortex Commun. 3, tgac035 (2022).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Aquino, K. M., Robinson, P. A., Schira, M. M. & Breakspear, M. Deconvolution of neural dynamics from fMRI data using a spatiotemporal hemodynamic response function. NeuroImage 94, 203–215 (2014).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
David, O. et al. Identifying neural drivers with functional MRI: an electrophysiological validation. PLoS Biol. 6, e315 (2008).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Friston, K., Moran, R. & Seth, A. K. Analysing connectivity with Granger causality and dynamic causal modelling. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 23, 172–178 (2013).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Deco, G., Kringelbach, M. L., Jirsa, V. K. & Ritter, P. The dynamics of resting fluctuations in the brain: metastability and its dynamical cortical core. Sci. Rep. 7, 3095 (2017).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Dang, S., Chaudhury, S., Lall, B. & Roy, P. K. Tractography-based score for learning effective connectivity from multimodal imaging data using dynamic Bayesian networks. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2017.2738035 (2017).
Ihalainen, R. et al. How hot is the hot zone? Computational modelling clarifies the role of parietal and frontoparietal connectivity during anaesthetic-induced loss of consciousness. NeuroImage 231, 117841 (2021).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sokolov, A. A. et al. Linking structural and effective brain connectivity: structurally informed parametric empirical Bayes (si-PEB). Brain Struct. Funct. 224, 205–217 (2019).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J. et al. Bayesian model reduction and empirical Bayes for group (DCM) studies. NeuroImage 128, 413–431 (2016).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Frässle, S. et al. Whole-brain estimates of directed connectivity for human connectomics. NeuroImage 225, 117491 (2021).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Frässle, S. et al. Regression DCM for fMRI. NeuroImage 155, 406–421 (2017).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Frässle, S. et al. A generative model of whole-brain effective connectivity. NeuroImage 179, 505–529 (2018).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Pagnotta, M. F. & Plomp, G. Time-varying MVAR algorithms for directed connectivity analysis: critical comparison in simulations and benchmark EEG data. PLoS ONE 13, e0198846 (2018).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Bi, K. et al. An enriched Granger causal model allowing variable static anatomical constraints. NeuroImage Clin. 21, 101592 (2019).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Chiang, S. et al. Bayesian vector autoregressive model for multi-subject effective connectivity inference using multi-modal neuroimaging data: Bayesian multi-modal VAR model. Hum. Brain Mapp. 38, 1311–1332 (2017).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lurie, D. J. et al. Questions and controversies in the study of time-varying functional connectivity in resting fMRI. Netw. Neurosci. 4, 30–69 (2020).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Liégeois, R., Laumann, T. O., Snyder, A. Z., Zhou, J. & Yeo, B. T. T. Interpreting temporal fluctuations in resting-state functional connectivity MRI. NeuroImage 163, 437–455 (2017).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Pascucci, D., Rubega, M. & Plomp, G. Modeling time-varying brain networks with a self-tuning optimized Kalman filter. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007566 (2020).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Pascucci, D. et al. Structure supports function: informing directed and dynamic functional connectivity with anatomical priors. Netw. Neurosci. 6, 401–419 (2022).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, M., Yamashita, O., Knösche, T. R. & Sato, M. MEG source reconstruction based on identification of directed source interactions on whole-brain anatomical networks. NeuroImage 105, 408–427 (2015).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gilson, M., Moreno-Bote, R., Ponce-Alvarez, A., Ritter, P. & Deco, G. Estimation of directed effective connectivity from fMRI functional connectivity hints at asymmetries of cortical connectome. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004762 (2016).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Gilson, M. et al. Model-based whole-brain effective connectivity to study distributed cognition in health and disease. Netw. Neurosci. 4, 338–373 (2020).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Rolls, E. T. et al. Effective connectivity in depression. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging 3, 187–197 (2018).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Pallarés, V. et al. Extracting orthogonal subject- and condition-specific signatures from fMRI data using whole-brain effective connectivity. NeuroImage 178, 238–254 (2018).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
De Filippi, E. et al. One session of fMRI-neurofeedback training on motor imagery modulates whole-brain effective connectivity and dynamical complexity. Cereb. Cortex Commun. 3, tgac027 (2022).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Aquino, K. M. et al. On the intersection between data quality and dynamical modelling of large-scale fMRI signals. NeuroImage 256, 119051 (2022).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Breakspear, M. Dynamic models of large-scale brain activity. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 340–352 (2017).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Deco, G., Jirsa, V. K., Robinson, P. A., Breakspear, M. & Friston, K. The dynamic brain: from spiking neurons to neural masses and cortical fields. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000092 (2008).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Rolls, E. T., Deco, G., Huang, C.-C. & Feng, J. The effective connectivity of the human hippocampal memory system. Cereb. Cortex 32, 3706–3725 (2022).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Crimi, A., Dodero, L., Sambataro, F., Murino, V. & Sona, D. Structurally constrained effective brain connectivity. NeuroImage 239, 118288 (2021).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Wu, G.-R. et al. A blind deconvolution approach to recover effective connectivity brain networks from resting state fMRI data. Med. Image Anal. 17, 365–374 (2013).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J., Kahan, J., Biswal, B. & Razi, A. A DCM for resting state fMRI. NeuroImage 94, 396–407 (2014).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Novelli, L., Friston, K. & Razi, A. Spectral dynamic causal modelling: a didactic introduction and its relationship with functional connectivity. Netw. Neurosci. 8, 1–37 (2023).
Google Scholar
Boutet, A. et al. Predicting optimal deep brain stimulation parameters for Parkinson’s disease using functional MRI and machine learning. Nat. Commun. 12, 3043 (2021).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Ji, J., Liu, J., Zou, A. & Zhang, A. ACOEC-FD: ant colony optimization for learning brain effective connectivity networks from functional MRI and diffusion tensor imaging. Front. Neurosci. 13, 1290 (2019).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Bagheri, A., Dehshiri, M., Bagheri, Y., Akhondi-Asl, A. & Nadjar Araabi, B. Brain effective connectome based on fMRI and DTI data: Bayesian causal learning and assessment. PLoS ONE 18, e0289406 (2023).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Shiguihara, P., Lopes, A. D. A. & Mauricio, D. Dynamic Bayesian network modeling, learning, and inference: a survey. IEEE Access 9, 117639–117648 (2021).
Google Scholar
Wein, S. et al. A graph neural network framework for causal inference in brain networks. Sci. Rep. 11, 8061 (2021).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Yuan, H., Yu, H., Gui, S. & Ji, S. Explainability in graph neural networks: a taxonomic survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3204236 (2022).
Ying, Z., Bourgeois, D., You, J., Zitnik, M. & Leskovec, J. GNNExplainer: generating explanations for graph neural networks. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (ed. Wallach, H. et al.) Vol. 32 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2019).
Agarwal, C., Queen, O., Lakkaraju, H. & Zitnik, M. Evaluating explainability for graph neural networks. Sci. Data 10, 144 (2023).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Greaves, M. D., Novelli, L. & Razi, A. Structurally informed resting-state effective connectivity recapitulates cortical hierarchy. Preprint at bioRxivhttps://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.03.587831 (2024).
Friston, K. Does predictive coding have a future? Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1019–1021 (2018).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J. & Stephan, K. E. Free-energy and the brain. Synthese 159, 417–458 (2007).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 127–138 (2010).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Cañizares, J. The free energy principle: good science and questionable philosophy in a grand unifying theory. Entropy 23, 238 (2021).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Rao, R. P. N. & Ballard, D. H. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nat. Neurosci. 2, 79–87 (1999).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bonetti, L. et al. Spatiotemporal brain hierarchies of auditory memory recognition and predictive coding. Nat. Commun. 15, 4313 (2024).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. A theory of cortical responses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 815–836 (2005).
Google Scholar
Goodwin, I., Hester, R. & Garrido, M. I. Temporal stability of Bayesian belief updating in perceptual decision-making. Behav. Res. 84, 6349–6362 (2023).
Google Scholar
Sterzer, P. et al. The predictive coding account of psychosis. Biol. Psychiatry 84, 634–643 (2018).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Smith, R., Badcock, P. & Friston, K. J. Recent advances in the application of predictive coding and active inference models within clinical neuroscience. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 75, 3–13 (2021).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Koubiyr, I. et al. Dynamic modular-level alterations of structural–functional coupling in clinically isolated syndrome. Brain 142, 3428–3439 (2019).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Luppi, A. I. et al. LSD alters dynamic integration and segregation in the human brain. NeuroImage 227, 117653 (2021).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Benozzo, D. et al. Macroscale coupling between structural and effective connectivity in the mouse brain. Sci. Rep. 14, 3142 (2024).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Vázquez-Rodríguez, B. et al. Gradients of structure–function tethering across neocortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 21219–21227 (2019).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Baum, G. L. et al. Development of structure–function coupling in human brain networks during youth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 771–778 (2020).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Preti, M. G. & Van De Ville, D. Decoupling of brain function from structure reveals regional behavioral specialization in humans. Nat. Commun. 10, 4747 (2019).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Gu, Z., Jamison, K. W., Sabuncu, M. R. & Kuceyeski, A. Heritability and interindividual variability of regional structure–function coupling. Nat. Commun. 12, 4894 (2021).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. et al. A multi-modal, asymmetric, weighted, and signed description of anatomical connectivity. Nat. Commun. 15, 5865 (2024).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. & Lefebvre, E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. 2008, P10008 (2008).
Google Scholar
Sokolov, A. A. et al. Structural and effective brain connectivity underlying biological motion detection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E12034–E12042 (2018).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, K. A., DeMaster, D., Kook, J. H., Vannucci, M. & Ewing‐Cobbs, L. Effective connectivity in the default mode network after paediatric traumatic brain injury. Eur. J. Neurosci. 55, 318–336 (2022).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sokolov, A. A. et al. Asymmetric high-order anatomical brain connectivity sculpts effective connectivity. Netw. Neurosci. 4, 871–890 (2020).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Bazinet, V., Hansen, J. Y. & Misic, B. Towards a biologically annotated brain connectome. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 747–760 (2023).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Baria, A. T. et al. Linking human brain local activity fluctuations to structural and functional network architectures. NeuroImage 73, 144–155 (2013).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sethi, S. S., Zerbi, V., Wenderoth, N., Fornito, A. & Fulcher, B. D. Structural connectome topology relates to regional BOLD signal dynamics in the mouse brain. Chaos 27, 047405 (2017).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fallon, J. et al. Timescales of spontaneous fMRI fluctuations relate to structural connectivity in the brain. Netw. Neurosci. 4, 788–806 (2020).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Lee, T.-W. & Xue, S.-W. Linking graph features of anatomical architecture to regional brain activity: a multi-modal MRI study. Neurosci. Lett. 651, 123–127 (2017).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Jirsa, V. K., Sporns, O., Breakspear, M., Deco, G. & McIntosh, A. R. Towards the virtual brain: network modeling of the intact and the damaged brain. Arch. Ital. Biol. 148, 189–205 (2010).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, M. et al. The Bayesian virtual epileptic patient: a probabilistic framework designed to infer the spatial map of epileptogenicity in a personalized large-scale brain model of epilepsy spread. NeuroImage 217, 116839 (2020).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Jha, J., Hashemi, M., Vattikonda, A. N., Wang, H. & Jirsa, V. Fully Bayesian estimation of virtual brain parameters with self-tuning Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 3, 035016 (2022).
Google Scholar
Abdelnour, F., Voss, H. U. & Raj, A. Network diffusion accurately models the relationship between structural and functional brain connectivity networks. NeuroImage 90, 335–347 (2014).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ereira, S., Waters, S., Razi, A. & Marshall, C. R. Early detection of dementia with default-mode network effective connectivity. Nat. Ment. Health 2, 787–800 (2024).
Google Scholar
Galioulline, H. et al. Predicting future depressive episodes from resting-state fMRI with generative embedding. NeuroImage 273, 119986 (2023).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Frässle, S. et al. Predicting individual clinical trajectories of depression with generative embedding. NeuroImage Clin. 26, 102213 (2020).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Brodersen, K. H. et al. Generative embedding for model-based classification of fMRI data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002079 (2011).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Mehdary, A., Chehri, A., Jakimi, A. & Saadane, R. Hyperparameter optimization with genetic algorithms and XGBoost: a step forward in smart grid fraud detection. Sensors 24, 1230 (2024).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Jbabdi, S., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Haber, S. N., Van Essen, D. C. & Behrens, T. E. Measuring macroscopic brain connections in vivo. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1546–1555 (2015).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Maier-Hein, K. H. et al. The challenge of mapping the human connectome based on diffusion tractography. Nat. Commun. 8, 1349 (2017).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Jbabdi, S., Behrens, T. E. J. & Smith, S. M. Crossing fibres in tract-based spatial statistics. NeuroImage 49, 249–256 (2010).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Reveley, C. et al. Superficial white matter fiber systems impede detection of long-range cortical connections in diffusion MR tractography. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E2820–E2828 (2015).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. et al. Anatomical accuracy of brain connections derived from diffusion MRI tractography is inherently limited. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16574–16579 (2014).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Dell’Acqua, F. & Tournier, J.-D. Modelling white matter with spherical deconvolution: how and why? NMR Biomed. 32, e3945 (2019).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Tournier, J.-D., Calamante, F. & Connelly, A. Robust determination of the fibre orientation distribution in diffusion MRI: non-negativity constrained super-resolved spherical deconvolution. NeuroImage 35, 1459–1472 (2007).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sarwar, T. et al. Evaluation of tractogram filtering methods using human-like connectome phantoms. NeuroImage 281, 120376 (2023).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Oh, S. W. et al. A mesoscale connectome of the mouse brain. Nature 508, 207–214 (2014).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Bernal-Casas, D., Lee, H. J., Weitz, A. J. & Lee, J. H. Studying brain circuit function with dynamic causal modeling for optogenetic fMRI. Neuron 93, 522–532.e5 (2017).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Ryali, S. et al. Combining optogenetic stimulation and fMRI to validate a multivariate dynamical systems model for estimating causal brain interactions. NeuroImage 132, 398–405 (2016).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Siviero, I. et al. Graph analysis of TMS–EEG connectivity reveals hemispheric differences following occipital stimulation. Sensors 23, 8833 (2023).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Hodkinson, D. J., Bungert, A., Bowtell, R., Jackson, S. R. & Jung, J. Operculo-insular and anterior cingulate plasticity induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in the human motor cortex: a dynamic casual modeling study. J. Neurophysiol. 125, 1180–1190 (2021).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Yemini, E. et al. NeuroPAL: a multicolor atlas for whole-brain neuronal identification in C. elegans. Cell 184, 272–288.e11 (2021).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Randi, F., Sharma, A. K., Dvali, S. & Leifer, A. M. Neural signal propagation atlas of Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 623, 406–414 (2023).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Creamer, M. S., Leifer, A. M. & Pillow, J. W. Bridging the gap between the connectome and whole-brain activity in C. elegans. Preprint at bioRxivhttps://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.22.614271 (2024).
Fox, M. D., Buckner, R. L., White, M. P., Greicius, M. D. & Pascual-Leone, A. Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation targets for depression is related to intrinsic functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate. Biol. Psychiatry 72, 595–603 (2012).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Cash, R. F. H. & Zalesky, A. Personalized and circuit-based transcranial magnetic stimulation: evidence, controversies, and opportunities. Biol. Psychiatry 95, 510–522 (2024).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cash, R. F. H. et al. Subgenual functional connectivity predicts antidepressant treatment response to transcranial magnetic stimulation: independent validation and evaluation of personalization. Biol. Psychiatry 86, e5–e7 (2019).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Weigand, A. et al. Prospective validation that subgenual connectivity predicts antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation sites. Biol. Psychiatry 84, 28–37 (2018).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Isserles, M. et al. Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with brief exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder: a prospective multisite randomized trial. Biol. Psychiatry 90, 721–728 (2021).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Balderston, N. L. et al. Proof of concept study to develop a novel connectivity-based electric-field modelling approach for individualized targeting of transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment. Neuropsychopharmacol 47, 588–598 (2022).
Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Ashburner, J. T., Kiebel, S. J., Nichols, T. E. & Penny, W. D. Statistical Parametric Mapping: The Analysis of Functional Brain Images (Elsevier Science, 2011).
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B. & Sereno, M. I. Cortical surface-based analysis. NeuroImage 9, 179–194 (1999).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fornito, A., Zalesky, A. & Bullmore, E. T. Fundamentals of Brain Network Analysis (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2016).
Roberts, S. J. & Penny, W. D. Variational Bayes for generalized autoregressive models. IEEE Trans. Signal. Process. 50, 2245–2257 (2002).
Google Scholar
Zeidman, P. et al. A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: second level analysis with PEB. NeuroImage 200, 12–25 (2019).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Shmueli, G. To explain or to predict? Stat. Sci. 25, 289–310 (2010).
Google Scholar
Download references
Acknowledgements
The authors thank C. Seguin for valuable discussions that contributed to the development of this Review. M.D.G. is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. M.D.G., L.N. and A.R. are funded by the Australian Research Council (ref. DP200100757). A.R. is also funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (ref. 1194910). A.R. is affiliated with The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging supported by core funding from Wellcome (203147/Z/16/Z). A.R. is a CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholar in the Brain, Mind & Consciousness Programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Matthew D. Greaves, Leonardo Novelli & Adeel Razi
Monash Biomedical Imaging, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Matthew D. Greaves, Leonardo Novelli & Adeel Razi
Centre for Sleep and Cognition, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
Sina Mansour L.
Centre for Translational Magnetic Resonance Research, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
Sina Mansour L.
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Sina Mansour L. & Andrew Zalesky
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London, UK
Adeel Razi
CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars Program, CIFAR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Adeel Razi
Authors
Matthew D. Greaves
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
2. Leonardo Novelli
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
3. Sina Mansour L.
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
4. Andrew Zalesky
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
5. Adeel Razi
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
Contributions
M.D.G. wrote the article. All authors researched data for the article, contributed substantially to discussion of the content and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to Matthew D. Greaves or Adeel Razi.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Neuroscience thanks Amy Kuceyeski and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Glossary
Bayes factor
A ratio comparing the evidence for two competing models, quantifying how much more likely the data are under one model than the other.
Biologically annotated connectomes
Connectome maps that include detailed biological information about the properties and functions of neural connections and regions.
Connectome
A comprehensive map of neural connections in the brain, representing the wiring diagram of the brain at the level of neurons or brain regions.
Construct validity
The degree to which a model accurately represents and measures the theoretical concepts or constructs it is intended to reflect, often evaluated through comparisons with other established models.
Cross-species validity
The extent to which a model or finding can be consistently applied and can produce similar results across different species, such as humans and non-human animals, which demonstrates robustness and generalizability.
Cross-spectral density
A frequency-domain measure that captures the amplitude and phase relationships between two signals across different frequencies, indicating their coherence and interaction strength.
Double-gamma
A predefined, standard model of the brain’s BOLD response to neuronal activity, using a function that captures both the primary peak and subsequent undershoot.
Effective mechanism
An insufficient, non-redundant part of an unnecessary but sufficient condition for bringing about certain observations (such as the influence that a specific gene expression pattern exerts on the development of a particular phenotype).
Embeddings
Representations of complex data in a lower-dimensional space that preserves relevant information and relationships.
Face validity
Refers (in modelling) to the extent to which a model seems effective and plausible, and is often assessed through simulations.
Free energy principle
A theoretical framework that suggests that the brain minimizes a quantity called free energy to maintain a stable internal state and reduce uncertainty about its environment.
Generative models
Describes how data are produced by underlying causes or processes, allowing for the simulation or generation of new data based on its structure and parameters.
Gradient descent
A fundamental optimization algorithm used in machine learning and statistics to minimize the error of a model by iteratively adjusting its parameters in the direction that reduces the error, based on the gradient of the loss function with respect to the parameters.
Graph-theoretical models
A mathematical model that uses the principles of graph theory and can be used to describe and analyse the network structure of the brain.
Grid search
A systematic, exhaustive search process used to tune hyperparameters by evaluating a model for each combination of specified parameter values.
Inverse problem
Involves inferring the unknown parameters or unobserved states of a system from observed data.
Kalman filtering
A recursive algorithm that estimates the state of a dynamic system by predicting the state and error covariance and then updating them with new observations weighted by the Kalman gain, which determines the influence of the new observations based on their estimated reliability.
Neural elements
Any component of a neural network that can process or transmit information, ranging from single neurons to larger, macroscale brain regions.
Neuronal populations
Groups of neurons that are treated as a single unit for the purpose of modelling the neural dynamics and interactions within and between different regions of the brain.
Optogenetics
A technique that involves the use of light to control cells within living tissue, typically neurons, that have been genetically modified to express light-sensitive ion channels.
Out-of-sample validity
The extent to which the results of a statistical model or analysis generalize to new, unseen data not used during the model training or fitting process.
Power-law
A mathematical relationship in which one quantity varies as a power of another, often seen in the spectral density of neural signals, in which lower frequencies have higher power, typically following a 1/f pattern.
Predictive coding
A theoretical framework that suggests the brain constantly generates and updates predictions about sensory inputs and uses the resulting prediction errors to refine its internal models of the environment.
Predictive validity
The extent to which a measurement or model accurately forecasts or predicts outcomes or behaviours in future, unseen situations, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness and applicability beyond the initial data used to create it.
Random effects
Here, a random effects model is a statistical model that accounts for variability across individuals by treating group-level parameters as random variables and is often used in Bayesian frameworks to improve the robustness of group-level inferences.
Regularization
A technique used in modelling to impose constraints or add information to prevent overfitting and improve generalizability by penalizing complex models.
Reliability
The consistency of a measurement, particularly emphasizing its ability to produce stable and consistent results upon repeated testing within the same subjects under similar conditions.
Savage–Dickey density ratio
A special case of the Bayes factor that compares the prior and posterior densities of a parameter at a specific value, used for efficiently testing point hypotheses in nested models.
Second-order statistics
Statistical measures that capture the relationships between pairs of data points, such as covariance and correlation, which describe the variability and dependencies in a data set.
Statistical conclusion validity
The degree to which conclusions about the relationship among variables based on the data are correct or reasonable.
Streamline
A space curve traced via a tractography algorithm and guided by the local orientations of a vector field computed from diffusion-weighted imaging.
Structural covariance analysis
A method that identifies relationships between brain regions by examining correlations in morphological features, such as cortical thickness or grey matter volume, across individuals.
Structure learning
The process of identifying the underlying structure or dependencies among variables in a data set, applicable in probabilistic graphical models and graph neural networks for predicting or inferring graph topologies.
Temporal precedence
The concept that one event occurs before another in time, serving as a necessary condition for directionality in neural interactions, helping to establish which brain region is likely influencing another.
Time constants
In the context of neural dynamics and functional MRI, time constants represent the rate at which a system returns to equilibrium after a perturbation, and to accurately capture these dynamics, the sampling rate must meet the Nyquist criterion, sampling at least twice the highest frequency present.
Tractography
Various algorithms applied to diffusion-weighted imaging to piece together streamline trajectories that correspond to probable nerve tract pathways.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation
A non-invasive procedure that uses magnetic fields to stimulate neurons, often used to study brain function and — increasingly — to treat neuropsychiatric disorders.
Unimodal–transmodal cortical hierarchy
A gradient or axis in the cerebral cortex that reflects increasing complexity of information processing, from sensory (unimodal) areas that handle basic sensory inputs to higher-order (transmodal) areas that integrate multisensory information and support complex cognitive functions.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Cite this article
Greaves, M.D., Novelli, L., Mansour L., S. et al. Structurally informed models of directed brain connectivity. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00881-3
Download citation
Accepted:30 October 2024
Published:11 December 2024
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00881-3
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Get shareable link
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative