Author Response: Optimization of Energy State Transition Trajectory Supports the Development of Executive Function During Youth
Zaixu Cui,Jennifer Stiso,Graham L. Baum,Jason Z. Kim,David R. Roalf,Richard F. Betzel,Shi Gu,Zhixin Lu,Cedric Huchuan Xia,Xiaosong He,Rastko Ćirić,Desmond J. Oathes,Tyler M. Moore,Russell T. Shinohara,Kosha Ruparel,Christos Davatzikos,Fabio Pasqualetti,Raquel E. Gur,Ruben C. Gur,Danielle S. Bassett,Theodore Satterthwaite
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.53060.sa2
2020-01-01
Abstract:Article Figures and data Abstract eLife digest Introduction Results Discussion Materials and methods Data availability References Decision letter Author response Article and author information Metrics Abstract Executive function develops during adolescence, yet it remains unknown how structural brain networks mature to facilitate activation of the fronto-parietal system, which is critical for executive function. In a sample of 946 human youths (ages 8-23y) who completed diffusion imaging, we capitalized upon recent advances in linear dynamical network control theory to calculate the energetic cost necessary to activate the fronto-parietal system through the control of multiple brain regions given existing structural network topology. We found that the energy required to activate the fronto-parietal system declined with development, and the pattern of regional energetic cost predicts unseen individuals’ brain maturity. Finally, energetic requirements of the cingulate cortex were negatively correlated with executive performance, and partially mediated the development of executive performance with age. Our results reveal a mechanism by which structural networks develop during adolescence to reduce the theoretical energetic costs of transitions to activation states necessary for executive function. eLife digest Adolescents are known for taking risks, from driving too fast to experimenting with drugs and alcohol. Such behaviors tend to decrease as individuals move into adulthood. Most people in their mid-twenties have greater self-control than they did as teenagers. They are also often better at planning, sustaining attention, and inhibiting impulsive behaviors. These skills, which are known as executive functions, develop over the course of adolescence. Executive functions rely upon a series of brain regions distributed across the frontal lobe and the lobe that sits just behind it, the parietal lobe. Fiber tracts connect these regions to form a fronto-parietal network. These fiber tracts are also referred to as white matter due to the whitish fatty material that surrounds and insulates them. Cui et al. now show that changes in white matter networks have implications for teen behavior. Almost 950 healthy young people aged between 8 and 23 years underwent a type of brain scan called diffusion-weighted imaging that visualizes white matter. The scans revealed that white matter networks in the frontal and parietal lobes mature over adolescence. This makes it easier for individuals to activate their fronto-parietal networks by decreasing the amount of energy required. Cui et al. show that a computer model can predict the maturity of a person's brain based on the energy needed to activate their fronto-parietal networks. These changes help explain why executive functions improve during adolescence. This in turn explains why behaviors such as risk-taking tend to decrease with age. That said, adults with various psychiatric disorders, such as ADHD and psychosis, often show impaired executive functions. In the future, it may be possible to reduce these impairments by applying magnetic fields to the scalp to reduce the activity of specific brain regions. The techniques used in the current study could help reveal which brain regions to target with this approach. Introduction Executive function is essential for a wide range of cognitive tasks, and is strongly associated with both overall intelligence (Arffa, 2007) and academic performance (Best et al., 2011). Executive function undergoes protracted maturation during adolescence (Best and Miller, 2010; Gur et al., 2012), and its development is linked to the expansion of the cognitive and behavioral repertoire. Notably, executive deficits are linked to both increased morbidity associated with risk-taking behaviors (Romer et al., 2009) as well as a wide range of neuropsychiatric disorders (Shanmugan et al., 2016), such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and psychosis (Barkley, 1997; Wolf et al., 2015). Prior studies have consistently established that executive function relies on activity in a distributed network of fronto-parietal regions, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, superior parietal cortex, and frontopolar cortex (Alvarez and Emory, 2006; Mansouri et al., 2017; Niendam et al., 2012; Rottschy et al., 2012; Satterthwaite et al., 2013). Notably, both functional (Fair et al., 2007; Grayson and Fair, 2017; Gu et al., 2015; Power et al., 2010) and structural (Baum et al., 2017; Hagmann et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2015) connectivity among these regions undergoes active remodeling during adolescence, with increased connectivity among executive regions, and diminished connectivity between executive regions and other systems such as the default mode network. As structural white matter networks are known to constrain both intrinsic connectivity and patterns of task-related activation (Hermundstad et al., 2013; Honey et al., 2009), it is possible that white matter networks develop during adolescence to facilitate dynamic transitions to fronto-parietal system activation states with lower theoretical energetic cost. However, research that seeks to relate developing white matter networks to the functional dynamics of the fronto-parietal executive system remains sparse. Network control theory provides a powerful framework to address this gap in our knowledge. Previous work has shown that the brain becomes more theoretically controllable to all possible brain states (on average) through the control of individual brain regions during adolescence (Tang et al., 2017). Network control theory has the potential to provide novel insights regarding mechanisms needed to transition to executive states, as executive function exerts top-down control on other brain systems in a manner akin to control points in a dynamic network (Gu et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2017). Capitalizing on recent developments in network control theory (Betzel et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017; Stiso et al., 2019), here we examine how the developing brain structural network supports the transition to a specific state necessary for executive function through the distributed control of multiple brain regions. Specifically, this new framework allows one to integrate information regarding network topology and patterns of brain activation within one mathematical model, in order to specify how theoretical neural dynamics are constrained by the structural connectome (Tang and Bassett, 2018). Such models assume that the activation state of the brain at a given time is a linear function of the previous state, the underlying white matter network, and any additional control energy injected into the system (Betzel et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017). From this paradigm, one can calculate the optimal energy cost to move the brain from one state to another given a structural network topology (Betzel et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018). In the present work, we apply this new technique to a large sample of youth. Specifically, we investigated how the energetic cost of transitions to a fronto-parietal system activation state necessary for the executive function changes in response to the maturation of structural brain network. We hypothesized that maturation of structural brain networks would allow for the target activation state of the fronto-parietal executive system to be reached at a lower energetic cost. To test this hypothesis, we capitalized on a large sample of youth (8–23 years) who completed neuroimaging as part of the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC) (Satterthwaite et al., 2014). We examined how white matter networks (estimated using diffusion imaging) support the transition to a fronto-parietal system activation state. As described below, we demonstrate that the energy required to reach this state declines with age, especially within the fronto-parietal control network. Furthermore, we find that the whole-brain control energy pattern contains sufficient information to predict individuals’ brain maturity across development. Finally, participants with better performance on executive tasks require less energetic cost in the bilateral cingulate cortex to reach this activation target, and the energetic cost of this region mediates the development of executive performance with age. Notably, these results could not be explained by individual differences in general network control properties, and were not present in alternative activation target states. Together, these results suggest that structural brain networks become optimized in development to minimize the energetic costs of transitions to activation states necessary for executive function through the distributed control of multiple brain regions. Results Network topology constrains the transition to a fronto-parietal activation state In this study, we included 946 youths aged 8–23 years who were imaged as part of the PNC (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Structural white matter networks were reconstructed for each participant from diffusion imaging data using probabilistic tractography and a standard parcellation of 232 regions. Capitalizing on recent advances in network control theory, we modeled how structural networks facilitate state transitions from an initial baseline state to the target state. In the initial state, all regions had an activity magnitude of 0. In the target state, regions in the fronto-parietal system had activity magnitude of 1, with all other regions having an activity magnitude of 0. Specifically, we defined the trajectory of a neural system to be the temporal path that the system traverses through diverse states, where the item state was defined as the vector of neurophysiological activity across brain regions at a single time point. Based on each participant’s unique network topology, we estimated the regional energetic cost required for the brain to transition from the baseline to the fronto-parietal activation target state (Betzel et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017; Stiso et al., 2019; Figure 1—figure supplement 2 and Figure 1a). Formally, this estimation was operationalized as a multi-point network control optimization problem, where we aimed to identify the optimal trajectory between baseline and the fronto-parietal activation target state that minimizes both the energetic cost and the distance between the final state and the target state. Figure 1 with 3 supplements see all Download asset Open asset Schematic of the network control approach and the estimation of control energy. (a) From a baseline state, we calculated the control energy required to reach a fronto-parietal activation target state. This transition was calculated for each subject based on their structural brain network, which was estimated using diffusion imaging and probabilistic tractography. (b) The average energetic costs to reach the fronto-parietal activation target state varied by cognitive system, with the largest energetic costs being present in the fronto-parietal control network and the ventral attention network. (c) The regional control energy required to reach the fronto-parietal activation target. (d) The control energy cost of a transition to the fronto-parietal activation target state was significantly lower in real brain networks than in null model networks where the strength and degree distribution were preserved. Results of this linear dynamical model indicate that the trajectory distance (i.e., the distance between current and target states) decreases with time until the desired target state is reached (Figure 1—figure supplement 3a and b). For each network node, we calculated the control energy cost, which provides an indication of where energy must be injected into the network to achieve the transition to the target state. Consistent with a recent methodological study (Karrer et al., 2019), and several recent empirical studies (Betzel et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017; Stiso et al., 2019), the trajectory distance (Figure 1—figure supplement 3b) was inversely related to the time-dependent energy cost within subject (Figure 1—figure supplement 3c). We calculated the trajectory distance at each time point, which was defined as the Euclidean distance between the current brain state and the target brain state. A small distance suggests that the current vector of brain activity is similar to the target vector of brain activity. Across all subjects, we found the total trajectory distance of all time points was positively correlated with total control energy of all time points (r = 0.97, p<2 × 10−16, Figure 1—figure supplement 3d), suggesting that subjects whose state transition trajectory is long require more energy input to reach the target state. Prior literature has demonstrated that control energy cost is lower in human brain than in the brains of Drosophila and mouse to support diverse network dynamics (Kim et al., 2018), is related to network topology (Betzel et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2018) and reflects the magnitude of focal electrocorticography stimulation required to drive the brain to a target memory state in patients with medically refractory epilepsy (Stiso et al., 2019). Accordingly, here we used the control energy as a metric to summarize the optimal trajectory. We calculated the mean control energy of each system; the highest control energy was observed in systems involved in executive function (Figure 1b and c), including the fronto-parietal and ventral attention/cingulo-opercular systems (see Figure 1—figure supplement 2; Yeo et al., 2011). Based on recent evidence that network control properties depend appreciably on the topological structure of the network (Kim et al., 2018; Wu-Yan et al., 2017), we next sought to demonstrate that the topological structure of brain networks facilitates this transition. We therefore compared the energetic cost of this transition in empirical brain networks to the energetic cost observed in null model networks. Specifically, we randomly permuted (100 times per participant) the placement of edge weights, while preserving the network degree and strength distribution. The mean whole brain energetic cost of the null networks was significantly higher (p<2 × 10−16) than that of the empirical networks (Figure 1d), indicating that structural brain networks are topologically optimized to reduce the energetic costs of the transition to a fronto-parietal activation state. Energetic costs of the transition to a fronto-parietal activation state decline with development Having shown that the topology of structural brain networks facilitates transitions to a fronto-parietal activation state, we next investigated how the energetic costs of this transition evolve in youth. We hypothesized that the energy required to make this transition would decline as networks were remodeled in development. Prior studies have demonstrated that the developmental changes of both brain structure and function could be either linear (Hagmann et al., 2010; Wierenga et al., 2016) or non-linear (Grayson and Fair, 2017; Mills et al., 2016; Vandekar et al., 2015). Therefore, we used generalized additive models (GAM) with penalized splines, which allowed us to rigorously characterize both linear and nonlinear effects while avoiding over-fitting. Age associations with control energy were examined at multiple scales, including the level of the whole brain, cognitive systems, and individual nodes. For all analyses, we included sex, handedness, in-scanner head motion, total brain volume, and total network strength as covariates. These analyses revealed that the whole-brain average energetic cost of the transition to the fronto-parietal activation state declined with age (Z = −5.12, p=3.06 × 10−7, Partial r = −0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−0.23,–0.10]; Figure 2a). Notably, analyses of cognitive systems indicated that age effects were heterogeneously distributed (Figure 2b), with the largest declines in control energy occurring in fronto-parietal (Z = −5.30, PFDR = 4.54 × 10−7, Partial r = −0.17, CI = [−0.23,–0.11]; Figure 2c), visual (Z = −4.25, PFDR = 5.71 × 10−5, Partial r = −0.14, CI = [−0.20,–0.08]), and motor (Z = −3.20, PFDR = 2.70 × 10−3, Partial r = −0.09, CI = [−0.15,–0.03]) systems. In contrast, energetic costs within the limbic (Z = 8.69, PFDR <2 × 10−16, Partial r = 0.29, CI = [0.23, 0.35]) and default mode (Z = 2.86, PFDR = 5.66 × 10−3, Partial r = 0.10, CI = [0.04, 0.17]) systems increased with age (see Figure 2—figure supplement 1). These system-level results aligned with analyses of individual network nodes; we found that the control energy of 49 regions decreased significantly with age (PFDR <0.05), including regions in the fronto-parietal control, visual, and motor systems. Furthermore, the control energy significantly increased with development in 30 regions (PFDR <0.05), which were mainly situated in limbic and default mode systems (Figure 2d). Figure 2 with 4 supplements see all Download asset Open asset Control energy evolves with age in youth. (a) The mean whole-brain control energy required to reach the fronto-parietal activation target declines with age. (b) Control energy declines significantly with age in the fronto-parietal, visual, motor and subcortical systems. In contrast, control energy increased in the ventral attention, default mode and limbic systems. For each system with a significant association, the effect size is reported (in each bar) as the partial correlation between system-level control energy and age while controlling for the covariates. There is one outlier in the scatter plot of ventral attention system (Figure 2—figure supplement 1c) and the age-related changes of control energy was not significant (p=0.11) in this system after removing the outlier. (c) The control energy of the fronto-parietal system declines significantly with age. (d) The age effect of control energy for each brain region. The color of the contour of each brain region represents the cognitive system for each region (see Figure 1—figure supplement 2). In the scatterplots shown in panels (a and c), data points represent each subject (n = 946), the bold line indicates the best fit from a general additive model, and the shaded envelope denotes the 95% confidence interval. It should be noted that Z value was derived from the general additive model, which captures both linear and nonlinear relationships; the partial correlation reflects only linear relationships. VS: visual; MT: motor; DA: dorsal attention; VA: ventral attention; LM: limbic; FP: fronto-parietal; DM: default mode; SC: subcortical. Having found associations between age and control energy, we next conducted a series of eight additional analyses. First, we found that our results held true for a range of baseline initial states and a range of fronto-parietal activation target states. When 100 different initial baseline states were evaluated, we found that in all cases both the whole brain and the fronto-parietal system showed a significant decline in control energy with age (Figure 2—figure supplement 2a). Similarly, when 100 different target states of fronto-parietal activation were evaluated, we found that in all cases both the whole-brain and the fronto-parietal system showed a significant decline in control energy with age (Figure 2—figure supplement 2b). Second, we evaluated whether age effects could be due to non-topological network properties by evaluating the presence of age effects in null networks where degree and strength distributions were preserved. We found that the significance level of age effects in null networks were smaller than those observed in the real network (p<0.01, 100 permutations), suggesting that the empirically measured developmental effects were indeed driven by changes in the network topology (Figure 2—figure supplement 2c). Third, it should be noted that we only constrained the state of regions in the fronto-parietal system. Therefore, the distance travelled by these off-target regions outside the fronto-parietal system were not included in our cost function for calculating optimal control energy. This choice also serves to ensure that our calculation of control energy is largely robust to both the initial and target states of other regions. To demonstrate the robustness of our results to our definition of the matrix S, we calculated the control energy cost using the same initial and target states as in the main analyses but constraining the whole brain. Results showed that there is a high correlation (r = 0.94, p<2 × 10−16) between the whole-brain control energy cost when constraining the whole brain and that when constraining the fronto-parietal system only (Figure 2—figure supplement 2d). Fourth, we assessed whether the structural network optimized the transition to an a priori motor system activation target (Figure 1—figure supplement 2; Yeo et al., 2011). Results indicated that the mean whole brain energetic cost of the null networks was significantly higher (p<2 × 10−16) than that of the empirical networks (Figure 2—figure supplement 2e left), suggesting that the lower energetic cost of activtivating thefronto-parietal system was not unique, but was present when activating other systems as well. We further evaluated the age effects of control energy cost to activate the motor system. As the age range of 8–23 years is a critical period in the development of executive function rather than motor function, we expected weaker age effects in the motor system. We found that the whole-brain control energy required to transition to the motor system activation did not significantly change over the age range studied (Z = 1.48, p=0.14, Partial r = 0.05, CI = [−0.02, 0.11]; Figure 2—figure supplement 2e right). Fifth, we evaluated whether our developmental results could be explained by modal controllability. Modal controllability reflects the extent to which all dynamic modes of a system will change in response to small changes at a single node (Gu et al., 2015). If an individual has high modal controllability, it suggests that the underlying brain structural network was optimized to support efficient state transitions to diverse states. In line with this intuition, modal controllability increases with development in youth as flexible switching between patterns of brain activity becomes more common (Tang et al., 2017). Controlling for modal controllability did not alter our results (Figure 2—figure supplement 3a). Specifically, while controlling for modal controllability, average control energy of the whole-brain and fronto-parietal system both significantly declined with age (whole-brain: Z = −6.00, p=2.09 × 10−9, Partial r = −0.19, CI = [−0.25,–0.13]; fronto-parietal: Z = −9.95, PFDR <2 × 10−16, Partial r = −0.32, CI = [−0.37,–0.26]). Sixth, because the modularity of brain networks evolves with age, one could ask whether that evolution impacts the observed assocations with control energy (Baum et al., 2017; Hagmann et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2015). However, we found that results remained consistent after controlling for network modularity in all analyses (Figure 2—figure supplement 3b). For example, average control energy of the whole brain and of the fronto-parietal system both significantly declined with age after controlling for network modularity (whole-brain: Z = −3.95, p=7.73 × 10−5, Partial r = −0.13, CI = [−0.19,–0.07]; fronto-parietal: Z = −4.31, PFDR = 6.46 × 10−5, Partial r = −0.14, CI = [−0.20,–0.08]). We further assessed whether the increasing segregation of fronto-parietal system during youth (Baum et al., 2017) could explain the age effect of control energy. Results remained consistent after controlling for the average participation coefficient within the fronto-parietal system when examining age-related differences in the average control energy of the fronto-parietal system (Z = −4.64, p=3.51 × 10−6, Partial r = −0.15, CI = [−0.21,–0.09]). Seventh, we assessed whether connectivity within the fronto-parietal system or between the fronto-parietal and other systems could explain observed associations between age and control energy. Specifically, we calculated the sum of all the connections within fronto-parietal system and also the sum of all the connections between the fronto-parietal system and other systems. While controlling for within fronto-parietal connectivity strength, the control energy in the fronto-parietal system still significantly declined with development (Z = −3.53, p=0.0004, Partial r = −0.12, CI = [−0.18,–0.06]). Similarly, while controlling for the connectivity strength between the fronto-parietal system and other systems, the control energy in the fronto-parietal system still significantly declined with development (Z = −4.88, p=1.06 × 10−6, Partial r = −0.16, CI = [−0.22,–0.10]). Finally, in our main analyses, we specified the target state as regions within the fronto-parietal system, with each region having a magnitude of 1. As a final step, we also considered a biologically recorded target state defined as the average activation pattern elicited by an n-back working memory task that reliably recruits the fronto-parietal system (Figure 2—figure supplement 4a). Using this alternative target state, we found that the control energy cost of the real network was significantly lower than null networks (Figure 2—figure supplement 4b). As in the main analyses, the control energy cost was highest in the fronto-parietal system (Figure 2—figure supplement 4c). Similarly, the whole-brain average control energy cost (Z = −7.59, p=3.26 × 10−14, Partial r = −0.25, CI = [−0.30,–0.18]; Figure 2—figure supplement 4d) and average control energy in the fronto-parietal system (Z = −5.26, PFDR = 2.92 × 10−7, Partial r = −0.17, CI = [−0.23,–0.11]; Figure 2—figure supplement 4e) both significantly declined with age. Nodal analyses provided convergent results, revealing that the control energy in nodes within the fronto-parietal system significantly declined with age (Figure 2—figure supplement 4f). Patterns of control energy can predict brain maturity Having established that the control energy required to reach the fronto-parietal activation state changes with age on a regional and system-level basis using mass-univariate analysis, we next evaluated the developmental changes of control energy using multivariate pattern analysis. Multivariate pattern analysis complements mass-univariate analysis, as mass-univariate analysis investigates each feature (i.e., control energy of one brain region) in isolation. In contrast, multivariate pattern analyses are sensitive to the spatially distributed pattern of features (Davatzikos, 2004; Haynes, 2015; Haynes and Rees, 2006; Norman et al., 2006). To provide an integrated view of this high-dimensional data, we used multivariate pattern analysis to determine whether spatially distributed patterns of control energy could accurately predict participant age. Specifically, we applied ridge regression with nested two-fold cross validation (2F-CV, see Figure 3—figure supplement 1) to identify an individual participant’s age in an unbiased fashion using the multivariate pattern of regional control energy. Specifically, we divided all subjects into two subsets based on age, with the first subset used as a training set and the second subset used as a testing set. Within the training set, we used inner 2F-CV to select an optimal regularization parameter (λ). Then, we trained a model using the training data and predicted the brain maturity (i.e., ‘brain age’) of participants in the testing set (Dosenbach et al., 2010; Franke et al., 2010). The significance of the model was evaluated using permutation testing, where the correspondence between a subject’s control energy features and their age was permuted at random. This analysis revealed that the multivariate pattern of control energy could predict an unseen individual’s age (Figure 3a and Figure 3—figure supplement 2a and b): the correlation between the predicted ‘brain age’ and chronological age was 0.63 (p < 0.001) after controlling for the covariates, and the mean absolute error (MAE) was 2.16 years (p < 0.001). For completeness, we also repeated this procedure while reversing the training and test sets, which yielded very similar results (partial r = 0.58, p < 0.001; MAE = 2.27, p < 0.001; Figure 3a and Figure 3—figure supplement 2c and d). We further examined model weights at the level of individual network nodes. The regions that contributed the most to the prediction of brain maturity aligned with mass-univariate analyses, and included the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, the cingulate cortex, superior parietal cortex, and lateral temporal cortex (Figure 3b). In order to ensure that our initial split of the data was representative, we repeated this analysis with 100 random splits, which returned highly consistent results (mean partial r = 0.61, mean MAE = 2.21 years). Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all Download asset Open asset The whole-brain control energy pattern contains sufficient information to predict brain maturity in unseen individuals. (a) The predicted brain maturity index was significantly related to the chronological age in a multivariate ridge regression model that used 2-fold cross validation (2F-CV) with nested parameter tuning. The complete sample of of subjects was divided into two subsets according to age rank. The blue color represents the best-fit line between the actual score of the first subset of subjects and their scores predicted by the model trained using the second subset of subjects. The green color represents the best-fit line between the actual score of the second subset of subjects and their scores predicted by the model trained using the first subset of