Abstract
In the last few decades, brain functional connectivity (FC) has been extensively assessed using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (RS-fMRI), which is able to identify temporally correlated brain regions known as RS functional networks. Fundamental insights into the pathophysiology of several neurodegenerative conditions have been provided by studies in this field. However, most of these studies are based on the assumption of temporal stationarity of RS functional networks, despite recent evidence suggests that the spatial patterns of RS networks may change periodically over the time of an fMRI scan acquisition. For this reason, dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) analysis has been recently implemented and proposed in order to consider the temporal fluctuations of FC. These approaches hold promise to provide fundamental information for the identification of pathophysiological and diagnostic markers in the vast field of neurodegenerative diseases. This review summarizes the main currently available approaches for dFC analysis and reports their recent applications for the assessment of the most common neurodegenerative conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and frontotemporal dementia. Critical state-of-the-art findings, limitations, and future perspectives regarding the analysis of dFC in these diseases are provided from both a clinical and a technical point of view.
Introduction: From Static to Dynamic Functional Connectivity
Neurodegenerative diseases are characterized by a progressive loss of neurons associated with deposition of aberrant proteins, leading to alterations of the structural and functional properties of the brain (). In the last decades, the non-invasive resting-state (RS) functional magnetic resonance imaging (RS-fMRI) technique has been widely applied in these clinical populations, to investigate more in depth the spatial topology and strength of interactions between brain networks (; ).
Functional magnetic resonance imaging uses the blood-oxygenation-level dependent (BOLD) signal, which is sensitive to spontaneous neural activity. In particular, low-frequency oscillations (<0.1 Hz) of the BOLD signal are analyzed to obtain functional information of brain networks. Functional connectivity (FC) quantifies the temporal correlation of functional activation in different brain regions and can be expressed in terms of pairwise Pearson’s correlation coefficients, covariance, or mutual information between time series, revealing specific networks (). FC has been recognized as an important biomarker for better understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of numerous neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (), Parkinson’s disease (PD) (; ), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) ().
So far, the implicit hypothesis on which FC analysis has been based is the assumption of temporal stationarity of the functional interaction between connections. Considering the dynamic nature of brain activity, a novel approach is provided by dynamic functional connectivity (dFC), which considers the temporal fluctuations of functional connections in faster timescales (). Unlike conventional static FC, which is obtained from the correlation within an entire time series, dFC refers to the brain activity within sub-portions of time series (). Major efforts have been made to identify and analyze time-varying, but recurring, FC sub-patterns of coupling among brain regions, constituting the brain “chronnectome” ().
The aim of this review is to describe the contribution of dFC studies in RS conditions for a better understanding of neurodegenerative diseases. We are going to focus on the most common approaches to analyze dFC and review recent findings in this field concerning AD, PD and other parkinsonisms, and FTD. We conclude this work summarizing caveats, limitations and future perspectives regarding dFC analysis.
Methodological Overview
Several computational strategies have been implemented to characterize temporal and spatial variations of BOLD signal (; ; ). The most common approach is provided by the sliding-window technique (, ; ; ), characterized by the selection of a time window – shorter than the whole-scan time – whose data points are used to calculate FC metrics. The window is shifted in time by a fixed number of data points, referred as step, which defines the overlap between two successive windows. The step duration ranges from one single data point to the length of the window (i.e., non-overlapping windows) (; ).
In combination with the sliding-window approach, several studies have applied clustering methods to identify reproducible, transient patterns and to evaluate the commonly used graph metrics, the dwell time, defined as the number of consecutive windows in a specific state, and the number of transitions between states ().
Since a subject could be in more than one state at a given point, the concept of “meta-states” and meta-state measures has been introduced to intuitively characterize the dynamic fluidity in FC (; ). Meta-state measures include the number of occupied meta-states, number of switches between meta-states, greatest distance between two meta-states and overall distance (). Furthermore, the sliding-window approach can be integrated with the application of independent component analysis (ICA) to identify spatial maps in the windowed BOLD signal and assess variability or graph theoretical metrics (; ; ). The sliding-window approach can also be used jointly with classification algorithms to exploit the information resulting from patterns of dFC (; ; Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Alternative approaches to evaluate dFC are represented by time-frequency analysis, dynamic connectivity regression (DCR) and dynamic connectivity detection (DCD), which are data-driven techniques for detecting FC change points within RS fMRI time series, and derive dynamic information from such points (
Alzheimer’s Disease
Alzheimer’s disease is the most common neurodegenerative cause of dementia (
Given the high consistency of these findings across static FC studies, AD represents a good candidate to apply dFC approaches to the field of neurodegenerative disorders, since capturing the evolving architecture of brain networks over short periods of time might provide further pathophysiological insights into these conditions, and eventually better diagnostic or prognostic indicators. The first study investigating dFC of AD patients examined changes over time of a modularity metric using a sliding-window analysis (
Researchers have also aimed to identify dFC alterations that may represent candidate non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers in the early stages of AD. A sparse temporal network-based framework has been tested for the classification of patients with early MCI by means of support vector machine (SVM) algorithms, yielding an accuracy of approximately 80% in the discrimination from healthy controls, compared with accuracies ranging 62–72% using FC static approaches (
Parkinson’s Disease
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder and is characterized by dopamine depletion in the nigro-striatal system leading to progressive functional impairment (
The first study assessing the dynamic functional properties of RS networks in PD patients identified two main FC configurations: a more frequent and strongly segregated state (defined as “State I”) and a less frequent, more integrated “State II” (
FIGURE 2

Functional connectivity state results. (A) Group-specific cluster centroid for each state, averaged across subject-specific median cluster centroids of each group [percentage of total occurrences for stage I and II: 83.4% and 16.6% in the healthy controls (HC) and 70.8% and 29.2% in the Parkinson’s disease (PD) group, respectively]. (B) Functional connectivity in each state is shown for healthy controls and Parkinson’s disease groups, representing the 5% of the functional connectivity network with the strongest connections. BG, basal ganglia; AUD, auditory; SMN, sensorimotor; VIS, visual; CEN, cognitive executive; CB, cerebellar network (reproduced with permission from
Along with motor impairment, dFC has also provided significant information regarding the underpinnings of cognitive symptoms in PD. Decreased dwell time in a more segregated state and increased state transitions have been demonstrated in PD-MCI patients compared with healthy controls, configuring a pattern that PD patients with normal cognition lacked (
Other Neurodegenerative Conditions
To date, most dFC studies assessing patients with neurodegenerative conditions have focused on the two most common diseases, i.e., AD and PD. Considering also the novelty of these approaches, evidence regarding other pathological entities is currently scarce, but in rapid development.
Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is among the most common causes of dementia after AD, and is characterized by cognitive fluctuations, parkinsonism, and visual hallucinations (
Frontotemporal dementia is another frequent neurodegenerative condition encompassing a wide range of clinical presentations, including behavioral, executive, language and motor deficits (
Caveats, Limitations and Future Directions
Based on the evidence here reviewed, dFC studies have shed new light on the pathophysiological alterations underlying the most common neurodegenerative diseases. However, important concerns remain regarding the possible influence of vigilance fluctuations during the fMRI scan. Although patients are routinely instructed to stay awake for the whole scan duration, sleep disturbances are frequent clinical features of dementias and parkinsonian syndromes (
Some technical caveats also need to be considered. The sliding-window technique has been repeatedly applied because of its analytical simplicity and easy implementation: in most studies, the number of BOLD signal subseries K is decided based on the window length W, the number of temporal image volumes N and the step, according to the formulation K = [(N – W) / s] +1 (
Beyond these methodological aspects, there are still some unsolved questions regarding dFC. Neurobiological underpinnings and mechanisms of dynamic states have to be clarified (
Conclusion
Assessing dFC is a promising way to better understand neurodegenerative processes and investigate novel disease diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. However, future developments are needed to rule out the influence of vigilance fluctuations, overcome the limitations of the sliding-window approach – possibly using other methods as time-frequency analysis –, identify the most informative dFC metrics, and minimize artifacts by means of adequate preprocessing, so as to be more confident in the description and interpretation of these findings.
Statements
Author contributions
MF contributed to the study concept and acted as study supervisor. All authors contributed to writing, reading, and approving the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
MF is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurology; has received compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; and has received research support from Biogen Idec, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Roche, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, and ARiSLA (Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA). FA is Section Editor of NeuroImage: Clinical; has received speaker honoraria from Biogen Idec and Novartis; and receives or has received research supports from the Italian Ministry of Health, AriSLA (Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA), and the European Research Council. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AbrolA.DamarajuE.MillerR. L.StephenJ. M.ClausE. D.MayerA. R.et al (2017). Replicability of time-varying connectivity patterns in large resting state fMRI samples.Neuroimage163160–176. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.020
2
AgostaF.CasoF.StankovicI.InuggiA.PetrovicI.SvetelM.et al (2014). Cortico-striatal-thalamic network functional connectivity in hemiparkinsonism.Neurobiol. Aging352592–2602. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.05.032
3
AgostaF.PievaniM.GeroldiC.CopettiM.FrisoniG. B.FilippiM. (2012). Resting state fMRI in Alzheimer’s disease: beyond the default mode network.Neurobiol. Aging331564–1578. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.06.007
4
AkramH.WuC.HyamJ.FoltynieT.LimousinP.De VitaE.et al (2017). l-Dopa responsiveness is associated with distinctive connectivity patterns in advanced Parkinson’s disease.Mov. Disord.32874–883. 10.1002/mds.27017
5
AllenE. A.DamarajuE.EicheleT.WuL.CalhounV. D. (2018). EEG signatures of dynamic functional network connectivity states.Brain Topogr.31101–116. 10.1007/s10548-017-0546-542
6
AllenE. A.DamarajuE.PlisS. M.ErhardtE. B.EicheleT.CalhounV. D. (2014). Tracking whole-brain connectivity dynamics in the resting state.Cereb. Cortex24663–676. 10.1093/cercor/bhs352
7
Alzheimer’sA. (2016). 2016 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures.Alzheimers Dement12459–509. 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.03.001
8
AmboniM.TessitoreA.EspositoF.SantangeloG.PicilloM.VitaleC.et al (2015). Resting-state functional connectivity associated with mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease.J. Neurol.262425–434. 10.1007/s00415-014-7591-7595
9
BadhwarA.TamA.DansereauC.OrbanP.HoffstaedterF.BellecP. (2017). Resting-state network dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Alzheimers Dement873–85. 10.1016/j.dadm.2017.03.007
10
BaggioH. C.SeguraB.Sala-LlonchR.MartiM. J.ValldeoriolaF.ComptaY.et al (2015). Cognitive impairment and resting-state network connectivity in Parkinson’s disease.Hum. Brain Mapp.36199–212. 10.1002/hbm.22622
11
BaiF.LiaoW.WatsonD. R.ShiY.WangY.YueC.et al (2011). Abnormal whole-brain functional connection in amnestic mild cognitive impairment patients.Behav. Brain Res.216666–672. 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.09.010
12
BaiF.ZhangZ.YuH.ShiY.YuanY.ZhuW.et al (2008). Default-mode network activity distinguishes amnestic type mild cognitive impairment from healthy aging: a combined structural and resting-state functional MRI study.Neurosci. Lett.438111–115. 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.04.021
13
CalhounV. D.MillerR.PearlsonG.AdaliT. (2014). The chronnectome: time-varying connectivity networks as the next frontier in fMRI data discovery.Neuron84262–274. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.015
14
ChenX.ZhangH.GaoY.WeeC. Y.LiG.ShenD.et al (2016). High-order resting-state functional connectivity network for MCI classification.Hum. Brain Mapp.373282–3296. 10.1002/hbm.23240
15
ChenX.ZhangH.ZhangL.ShenC.LeeS. W.ShenD. (2017). Extraction of dynamic functional connectivity from brain grey matter and white matter for MCI classification.Hum. Brain Mapp.385019–5034. 10.1002/hbm.23711
16
CordesD.ZhuangX.KaleemM.SreenivasanK.YangZ.MishraV.et al (2018). Advances in functional magnetic resonance imaging data analysis methods using empirical mode decomposition to investigate temporal changes in early Parkinson’s disease.Alzheimers Dement4372–386. 10.1016/j.trci.2018.04.009
17
Cordova-PalomeraA.KaufmannT.PerssonK.AlnaesD.DoanN. T.MobergetT.et al (2017). Disrupted global metastability and static and dynamic brain connectivity across individuals in the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.Sci. Rep.7:40268. 10.1038/srep40268
18
de VosF.KoiniM.SchoutenT. M.SeilerS.van der GrondJ.LechnerA.et al (2018). A comprehensive analysis of resting state fMRI measures to classify individual patients with Alzheimer’s disease.Neuroimage16762–72. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.025
19
DemirtasM.FalconC.TucholkaA.GispertJ. D.MolinuevoJ. L.DecoG. (2017). A whole-brain computational modeling approach to explain the alterations in resting-state functional connectivity during progression of Alzheimer’s disease.Neuroimage Clin.16343–354. 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.08.006
20
Diez-CirardaM.StrafellaA. P.KimJ.PenaJ.OjedaN.Cabrera-ZubizarretaA.et al (2018). Dynamic functional connectivity in Parkinson’s disease patients with mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition.Neuroimage Clin.17847–855. 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.013
21
EngelsG.VlaarA.McCoyB.ScherderE.DouwL. (2018). Dynamic functional connectivity and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease: a resting-state fMRI study.Front. Aging Neurosci.10:388. 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00388
22
FilippiM.BasaiaS.CanuE.ImperialeF.MeaniA.CasoF.et al (2017). Brain network connectivity differs in early-onset neurodegenerative dementia.Neurology891764–1772. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004577
23
FilippiM.SarassoE.AgostaF. (2019). Resting-state functional MRI in Parkinsonian syndromes.Mov. Disord. Clin. Pract.6104–117. 10.1002/mdc3.12730
24
GreiciusM. D.SrivastavaG.ReissA. L.MenonV. (2004). Default-mode network activity distinguishes Alzheimer’s disease from healthy aging: evidence from functional MRI.Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. U.S.A.1014637–4642. 10.1073/pnas.0308627101
25
GuoH.LiuL.ChenJ.XuY.JieX. (2017). Alzheimer classification using a minimum spanning tree of high-order functional network on fMRI dataset.Front. Neurosci.11:639. 10.3389/fnins.2017.00639
26
HackerC. D.PerlmutterJ. S.CriswellS. R.AncesB. M.SnyderA. Z. (2012). Resting state functional connectivity of the striatum in Parkinson’s disease.Brain135(Pt 12), 3699–3711. 10.1093/brain/aws281
27
HaimoviciA.TagliazucchiE.BalenzuelaP.LaufsH. (2017). On wakefulness fluctuations as a source of BOLD functional connectivity dynamics.Sci. Rep.7:5908. 10.1038/s41598-017-06389-6384
28
HelmichR. C.DerikxL. C.BakkerM.ScheeringaR.BloemB. R.ToniI. (2010). Spatial remapping of cortico-striatal connectivity in Parkinson’s disease.Cereb. Cortex201175–1186. 10.1093/cercor/bhp178
29
HerzD. M.EickhoffS. B.LokkegaardA.SiebnerH. R. (2014). Functional neuroimaging of motor control in Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis.Hum. Brain Mapp.353227–3237. 10.1002/hbm.22397
30
HindriksR.AdhikariM. H.MurayamaY.GanzettiM.MantiniD.LogothetisN. K.et al (2016). Can sliding-window correlations reveal dynamic functional connectivity in resting-state fMRI?Neuroimage127242–256. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.055
31
HohenfeldC.WernerC. J.ReetzK. (2018). Resting-state connectivity in neurodegenerative disorders: is there potential for an imaging biomarker?Neuroimage Clin.18849–870. 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.03.013
32
HutchisonR. M.WomelsdorfT.AllenE. A.BandettiniP. A.CalhounV. D.CorbettaM.et al (2013). Dynamic functional connectivity: promise, issues, and interpretations.Neuroimage80360–378. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.079
33
JieB.LiuM.ShenD. (2018). Integration of temporal and spatial properties of dynamic connectivity networks for automatic diagnosis of brain disease.Med. Image Anal.4781–94. 10.1016/j.media.2018.03.013
34
JonesD. T.MachuldaM. M.VemuriP.McDadeE. M.ZengG.SenjemM. L.et al (2011). Age-related changes in the default mode network are more advanced in Alzheimer disease.Neurology771524–1531. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318233b33d
35
JonesD. T.VemuriP.MurphyM. C.GunterJ. L.SenjemM. L.MachuldaM. M.et al (2012). Non-stationarity in the “resting brain’s” modular architecture.PLoS One7:e39731. 10.1371/journal.pone.0039731
36
KimJ.CriaudM.ChoS. S.Diez-CirardaM.MihaescuA.CoakeleyS.et al (2017). Abnormal intrinsic brain functional network dynamics in Parkinson’s disease.Brain1402955–2967. 10.1093/brain/awx233
37
KochW.TeipelS.MuellerS.BenninghoffJ.WagnerM.BokdeA. L.et al (2012). Diagnostic power of default mode network resting state fMRI in the detection of Alzheimer’s disease.Neurobiol. Aging33466–478. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.04.013
38
KovacsG. G. (2017). Concepts and classification of neurodegenerative diseases.Handb. Clin. Neurol.145301–307. 10.1016/B978-0-12-802395-2.00021-23
39
LaumannT. O.SnyderA. Z.MitraA.GordonE. M.GrattonC.AdeyemoB.et al (2017). On the stability of BOLD fMRI correlations.Cereb. Cortex274719–4732. 10.1093/cercor/bhw265
40
LiY.WangX.LiY.SunY.ShengC.LiH.et al (2016). Abnormal resting-state functional connectivity strength in mild cognitive impairment and its conversion to Alzheimer’s Disease.Neural. Plast.2016:4680972. 10.1155/2016/4680972
41
LiuA.LinS. J.MiT.ChenX.ChanP.WangZ. J.et al (2018). Decreased subregional specificity of the putamen in Parkinson’s disease revealed by dynamic connectivity-derived parcellation.Neuroimage Clin.201163–1175. 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.10.022
42
LowtherE. R.O’BrienJ. T.FirbankM. J.BlamireA. M. (2014). Lewy body compared with Alzheimer dementia is associated with decreased functional connectivity in resting state networks.Psychiatry Res.223192–201. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.06.004
43
MadhyasthaT. M.AskrenM. K.BoordP.GrabowskiT. J. (2015). Dynamic connectivity at rest predicts attention task performance.Brain Connect.545–59. 10.1089/brain.2014.0248
44
MalhotraR. K. (2018). Neurodegenerative disorders and sleep.Sleep Med. Clin.1363–70. 10.1016/j.jsmc.2017.09.006
45
McKeithI. G.BoeveB. F.DicksonD. W.HallidayG.TaylorJ. P.WeintraubD.et al (2017). Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: fourth consensus report of the DLB consortium.Neurology8988–100. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004058
46
MenonS. S.KrishnamurthyK. (2019). A comparison of static and dynamic functional connectivities for identifying subjects and biological sex using intrinsic individual brain connectivity.Sci. Rep.9:5729. 10.1038/s41598-019-42090-42094
47
MillerR. L.YaesoubiM.TurnerJ. A.MathalonD.PredaA.PearlsonG.et al (2016). Higher dimensional meta-state analysis reveals reduced resting fMRI connectivity dynamism in schizophrenia patients.PLoS One11:e0149849. 10.1371/journal.pone.0149849
48
NalciA.RaoB. D.LiuT. T. (2019). Nuisance effects and the limitations of nuisance regression in dynamic functional connectivity fMRI.Neuroimage1841005–1031. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.024
49
OlneyN. T.SpinaS.MillerB. L. (2017). Frontotemporal dementia.Neurol. Clin.35339–374. 10.1016/j.ncl.2017.01.008
50
ParkH. J.FristonK. J.PaeC.ParkB.RaziA. (2018). Dynamic effective connectivity in resting state fMRI.Neuroimage180(Pt B), 594–608. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.033
51
PerazaL. R.KaiserM.FirbankM.GraziadioS.BonanniL.OnofrjM.et al (2014). fMRI resting state networks and their association with cognitive fluctuations in dementia with Lewy bodies.Neuroimage Clin.4558–565. 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.03.013
52
PetrellaJ. R.SheldonF. C.PrinceS. E.CalhounV. D.DoraiswamyP. M. (2011). Default mode network connectivity in stable vs progressive mild cognitive impairment.Neurology76511–517. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31820af94e
53
PoeweW.SeppiK.TannerC. M.HallidayG. M.BrundinP.VolkmannJ.et al (2017). Parkinson disease.Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers3:17013. 10.1038/nrdp.2017.13
54
PowerJ. D.MitraA.LaumannT. O.SnyderA. Z.SchlaggarB. L.PetersenS. E. (2014). Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI.Neuroimage84320–341. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.048
55
PowerJ. D.PlittM.GottsS. J.KunduP.VoonV.BandettiniP. A.et al (2018). Ridding fMRI data of motion-related influences: removal of signals with distinct spatial and physical bases in multiecho data.Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. U.S.A.115E2105–E2114. 10.1073/pnas.1720985115
56
PremiE.CalhounV. D.DianoM.GazzinaS.CossedduM.AlbericiA.et al (2019). The inner fluctuations of the brain in presymptomatic Frontotemporal Dementia: the chronnectome fingerprint.Neuroimage189645–654. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.080
57
PretiM. G.BoltonT. A.Van De VilleD. (2017). The dynamic functional connectome: state-of-the-art and perspectives.Neuroimage16041–54. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.061
58
PutchaD.RossR. S.Cronin-GolombA.JanesA. C.SternC. E. (2015). Altered intrinsic functional coupling between core neurocognitive networks in Parkinson’s disease.Neuroimage Clin.7449–455. 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.01.012
59
QuevencoF. C.PretiM. G.van BergenJ. M.HuaJ.WyssM.LiX.et al (2017). Memory performance-related dynamic brain connectivity indicates pathological burden and genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease.Alzheimers Res. Ther.9:24. 10.1186/s13195-017-0249-247
60
RohrerJ. D.WarrenJ. D. (2011). Phenotypic signatures of genetic frontotemporal dementia.Curr. Opin. Neurol.24542–549. 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834cd442
61
SmithS. M.MillerK. L.Salimi-KhorshidiG.WebsterM.BeckmannC. F.NicholsT. E.et al (2011). Network modelling methods for FMRI.Neuroimage54875–891. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.063
62
SmithaK. A.Akhil RajaK.ArunK. M.RajeshP. G.ThomasB.KapilamoorthyT. R.et al (2017). Resting state fMRI: a review on methods in resting state connectivity analysis and resting state networks.Neuroradiol. J.30305–317. 10.1177/1971400917697342
63
SourtyM.ThoravalL.RoquetD.ArmspachJ. P.FoucherJ.BlancF. (2016). Identifying dynamic functional connectivity changes in dementia with lewy bodies based on product hidden markov models.Front. Comput. Neurosci.10:60. 10.3389/fncom.2016.00060
64
TagliazucchiE.LaufsH. (2014). Decoding wakefulness levels from typical fMRI resting-state data reveals reliable drifts between wakefulness and sleep.Neuron82695–708. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.020
65
TagliazucchiE.von WegnerF.MorzelewskiA.BrodbeckV.LaufsH. (2012). Dynamic BOLD functional connectivity in humans and its electrophysiological correlates.Front. Hum. Neurosci.6:339. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00339
66
TessitoreA.EspositoF.VitaleC.SantangeloG.AmboniM.RussoA.et al (2012). Default-mode network connectivity in cognitively unimpaired patients with Parkinson disease.Neurology792226–2232. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827689d6
67
van EimerenT.MonchiO.BallangerB.StrafellaA. P. (2009). Dysfunction of the default mode network in Parkinson disease: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study.Arch. Neurol.66877–883. 10.1001/archneurol.2009.97
68
WeeC. Y.YangS.YapP. T.ShenD.Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (2016). Sparse temporally dynamic resting-state functional connectivity networks for early MCI identification.Brain Imaging Behav.10342–356. 10.1007/s11682-015-9408-9402
69
XuY.LindquistM. A. (2015). Dynamic connectivity detection: an algorithm for determining functional connectivity change points in fMRI data.Front. Neurosci.9:285. 10.3389/fnins.2015.00285
70
ZhanZ. W.LinL. Z.YuE. H.XinJ. W.LinL.LinH. L.et al (2018). Abnormal resting-state functional connectivity in posterior cingulate cortex of Parkinson’s disease with mild cognitive impairment and dementia.CNS Neurosci. Ther.24897–905. 10.1111/cns.12838
71
ZhuangX.WalshR. R.SreenivasanK.YangZ.MishraV.CordesD. (2018). Incorporating spatial constraint in co-activation pattern analysis to explore the dynamics of resting-state networks: an application to Parkinson’s disease.Neuroimage17264–84. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.019
Summary
Keywords
dynamic functional connectivity, fMRI, neurodegeneration, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia
Citation
Filippi M, Spinelli EG, Cividini C and Agosta F (2019) Resting State Dynamic Functional Connectivity in Neurodegenerative Conditions: A Review of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings. Front. Neurosci. 13:657. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00657
Received
05 April 2019
Accepted
07 June 2019
Published
20 June 2019
Volume
13 - 2019
Edited by
Roberto Esposito, A.O. Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord, Italy
Reviewed by
Abraham Z. Snyder, Washington University in St. Louis, United States; Darya Chyzhyk, Inria Saclay - Île-de-France, France
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2019 Filippi, Spinelli, Cividini and Agosta.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Massimo Filippi, filippi.massimo@hsr.it
This article was submitted to Brain Imaging Methods, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.