Iranian Journal of Biomedical Engineering (IJBME)
نشریه علمی مهندسی پزشکی زیستی

Dynamic Causal Modelling among Default Mode Network and Salience Network related to IQ

Document Type : Full Research Paper

Authors

Mina Ghoorchian 1
Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh 2
Mir Mohsen Pedram 3
Mohsen Mir Mohammad Sadeghi 4

1 Ph.D. Student, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Control and Intelligent Processing Center of Excellence, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22041/ijbme.2024.2018221.1876
Abstract
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is of interest to researchers. In this research, 100 unrelated young healthy subjects randomly selected from the 1200 HCP dataset (54 women and 46 men), with an average age of 28 years (age range from 22 to 35 years), were used. Each person has participated in Raven test. Based on the results of the Raven's test, each person is placed in one of the three groups: high intelligence, normal intelligence, and low intelligence. In the next step, using the resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI) data of these subjects and the spectral dynamic causal modeling algorithm implemented in the SPM12 package in MATLAB, two brain networks named the default mode network (DMN) and the salient network (SN) have been investigated. For each of the three groups mentioned above, a connection model was obtained. The obvious difference in the DMN network is as follows: there is no connection from PCC to RIPC in people with high intelligence in the obtained model. In contrast, there is an excitatory connection in the other two groups. Specifically, the LIPC to RIPC connection is inhibitory in people with high intelligence, but it is excitatory in the other two groups. Additionally, the connection between mPFC and RIPC is inhibitory in the group with high and average intelligence, while there is no connection in the group of people with low intelligence. After obtaining the model, ANOVA test with p-value<0.05 was used to check the difference. In the SN network, this significant difference was revealed on 6 edges of 169 edges, which were: rMCC-rvIPFC, rInsula-rvIPFC, rInsula-rPutamen, rInsula-lIPG, lIPG-rSFG, lIPG-rSFG.  

Keywords

Spectral DCM
DMN
SN
fMRI
IQ

Subjects

  1. Caltech, "https://www.caltech.edu," June 2018.
  2. Arya, M. Manuel, “Intelligence Quotient Classification from Human MRI Brain Images Using Convolutional Neural Network. pp. 75-80, 12th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN), Bhimtal, India, 25-26 September 2020.
  3. https://mostafaee.com/intelligence-test.
  4. Bradley, L. Whiteside, Leanne, B. Caldwell, P. Casey, K. Kelleher, S. Pope, M. Swanson, K. Barrett, D. Cross, “Maternal IQ, the home environment, and child IQ in low birthweight, premature children”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 16, pp. 61-74, 1993.
  5. Song, Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, K. Wang, C. Yu, T. Jiang, “Default network and intelligence difference”, IEEE Transactions on autonomous mental development, vol. 1, pp. 101-109, 2009.
  6. Tang, A. Razi, Y. Tang, “Mapping the smoking addiction using dynamic causal modelling at rest”, BMC Neuroscience, vol. 16, p. 246, 2015.
  7. Santarnecchi, S. Rossi, “Advances in the neuroscience of intelligence: from brain connectivity to brain perturbation”, The Spanish journal of psychology, vol. 19, p. 94, 2016.
  8. van Ettinger-Veenstra, P. Lundberg, “Chronic widespread pain patients show disrupted cortical connectivity in default mode and salience networks, modulated by pain sensitivity”, Journal of pain research, pp. 1743-1755, 2019.
  9. Sharaev, V. Zavyalova, V. Ushakov, S. Kartashov, B. Velichkovsky, “Effective connectivity within the default mode network: dynamic causal modeling of resting-state fMRI data”, Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 10, p. 14, 2016.
  10. Yoon, W. Shin, T. Lee, J. Hur, K. Cho, W. Sohn, S. Kim, K. Lee, “Brain structural networks associated with intelligence and visuomotor ability”, 2017. Scientific reports, 7(1), p. 2177.
  11. Hilger, M. Ekman, C. Fiebach, U. Basten, “Efficient hubs in the intelligent brain: Nodal efficiency of hub regions in the salience network is associated with general intelligence”, Intelligence, vol. 60, pp. 10-25, 2017.
  12. Xiao, J. Stephen, T. Wilson, V. Calhoun, “Alternating diffusion map based fusion of multimodal brain connectivity networks for IQ prediction”, EEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 66, pp. 2140-2151, 2018.
  13. van Ettinger-Veenstra, . P. Lundberg, P. Alföldi, M. Södermark, T. S. Graven-Nielsen, “Chronic widespread pain patients show disrupted cortical connectivity in default mode and salience networks, modulated by pain sensitivity”, Journal of pain research, pp. 1743-1755, 2019.
  14. Ramsden, F. Richardson, G. Josse, M. Thomas, C. Ellis, C. Shakeshaft, M. Seghier, C. Price, “Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain”, Nature, vol. 496, pp. 113-116, 2011.
  15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network, 2023.
  16. Di, B. Biswal, “Identifying the default mode network structure using dynamic causal modeling on resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging”, Neuroimage, vol. 86, pp. 53-59, 2014.
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_state_fMRI, wikipedia, 2022.
  18. Seeley, “The salience network: a neural system for perceiving and responding to homeostatic demands”, Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 39, pp. 9878-9882, 2019.
  19. Dubois, P. Galdi, L. Paul, R. Adolphs, “A distributed brain network predicts general intelligence from resting-state human neuroimaging data”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, vol. 31, 2018.
  20. Büchel, K. Friston, “Modulation of connectivity in visual pathways by attention: cortical interactions evaluated with structural equation modelling and fMRI”, Cerebral Cortex, vol. 7, pp. 768-778, 1997.
  21. Astolfi, F. Cincotti, D. Mattia, M. Marciani, L. Baccala, F. de Vico Fallani, S. Salinari, M. Ursino, M. Zavaglia, L. Ding, J. Edgar, “Comparison of different cortical connectivity estimators for high-resolution EEG recordings”, Human brain mapping, vol. 28, pp. 143-157, 2007.
  22. Friston, L. Harrison, W. Penny, “Dynamic causal modelling”, Neuroimage, vol. 19, pp. 1273-1302, 2003.
  23. Friston, J. Kahan, B. Biswal, A. Razi, “A DCM for resting state fMRI”, Neuroimage, vol. 94, pp. 396-407, 2014.
  24. Park, K. Friston, C. Pae, B. Park, A. Razi, “Dynamic effective connectivity in resting state fMRI”, NeuroImage, vol. 180, pp. 594-608, 2018.
  25. https://karboom.io/assessments/raven
  26. S. H. R. Barbey AK, The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  27. R. B. N. J. G. O. Conwell K., “Test-retest variability of resting-state networks in healthy aging and prodromal Alzheimer's disease”, NeuroImage: Clinical, pp. 948-962, 2018.
  28. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat510/lesson/12/12.1
Iranian Journal of Biomedical Engineering (IJBME)
Volume 17, Issue 3
Autumn 2023
Pages 195-207

  • Receive Date 23 December 2023
  • Revise Date 26 July 2024
  • Accept Date 19 August 2024

Home

Contact Us