A Percolation-Based Thresholding Method with Applications in Functional Connectivity Analysis

  • Farnaz Zamani Esfahlani
  • Hiroki Sayama
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


Despite the recent advances in developing more effective thresholding methods to convert weighted networks to unweighted counterparts, there are still several limitations that need to be addressed. One such limitation is the inability of the most existing thresholding methods to take into account the topological properties of the original weighted networks during the binarization process, which could ultimately result in unweighted networks that have drastically different topological properties than the original weighted networks. In this study, we propose a new thresholding method based on the percolation theory to address this limitation. The performance of the proposed method was validated and compared to the existing thresholding methods using simulated and real-world functional connectivity networks in the brain. Comparison of macroscopic and microscopic properties of the resulted unweighted networks to the original weighted networks suggests that the proposed thresholding method can successfully maintain the topological properties of the original weighted networks.


Percolation Thresholding Weighted networks Functional connectivity 



This work is supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) grant # MH112925-01. We would like to also thank Gregory P. Strauss and Katherine Visser for their support of this work.


  1. 1.
    Barabási, A.L.: Network science. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371(1987), 20120, 375 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rubinov, M., Sporns, O.: Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Neuroimage 52(3), 1059–1069 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van den Heuvel, M.P., de Lange, S.C., Zalesky, A., Seguin, C., Yeo, B.T., Schmidt, R.: Proportional thresholding in resting-state fmri functional connectivity networks and consequences for patient-control connectome studies: Issues and recommendations. Neuroimage 152, 437–449 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Wijk, B.C., Stam, C.J., Daffertshofer, A.: Comparing brain networks of different size and connectivity density using graph theory. PlOS one 5(10), e13, 701 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexander-Bloch, A.F., Gogtay, N., Meunier, D., Birn, R., Clasen, L., Lalonde, F., Lenroot, R., Giedd, J., Bullmore, E.T.: Disrupted modularity and local connectivity of brain functional networks in childhood-onset schizophrenia. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 4 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Granovetter, M.: The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory. 201–233 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bassett, D.S., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Achard, S., Duke, T., Bullmore, E.: Adaptive reconfiguration of fractal small-world human brain functional networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103(51), 19518–19523 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, M.X.: Analyzing Neural Time Series Data: Theory and Practice. MIT Press, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michel, V., Gramfort, A., Varoquaux, G., Eger, E., Thirion, B.: Total variation regularization for fmri-based prediction of behavior. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 30(7), 1328–1340 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milham, M.P.: The adhd-200 dataset. (2011). Accessed 01 May 17
  11. 11.
    Aine, C.: The center for biomedical research excellence (cobre) dataset. (2011). Accessed 01 May 17
  12. 12.
    Bellec, P., Chu, C., Chouinard-Decorte, F., Benhajali, Y., Margulies, D.S., Craddock, R.C.: The neuro bureau adhd-200 preprocessed repository. Neuroimage 144, 275–286 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ad-Dabbagh, Y., Lyttelton, O., Muehlboeck, J., Lepage, C., Einarson, D., Mok, K., Ivanov, O., Vincent, R., Lerch, J., Fombonne, E., et al.: The civet image-processing environment: a fully automated comprehensive pipeline for anatomical neuroimaging research. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting Of The Organization For Human Brain Mapping, p. 2266. Florence, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Craddock, R.C., Jbabdi, S., Yan, C.G., Vogelstein, J.T., Castellanos, F.X., Di Martino, A., Kelly, C., Heberlein, K., Colcombe, S., Milham, M.P.: Imaging human connectomes at the macroscale. Nat. Methods 10(6), 524–539 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, Y., Kang, J., Kemmer, P.B., Guo, Y.: An efficient and reliable statistical method for estimating functional connectivity in large scale brain networks using partial correlation. Front. Neurosci. 10 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Varoquaux, G., Baronnet, F., Kleinschmidt, A., Fillard, P., Thirion, B.: Detection of brain functional-connectivity difference in post-stroke patients using group-level covariance modeling. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 200–208. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newman, M.E.: The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98(2), 404–409 (2001)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spellman, P.T., Sherlock, G., Zhang, M.Q., Iyer, V.R., Anders, K., Eisen, M.B., Brown, P.O., Botstein, D., Futcher, B.: Comprehensive identification of cell cycle-regulated genes of the yeast saccharomyces cerevisiae by microarray hybridization. Mol. Biol. Cell 9(12), 3273–3297 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Systems Science and Industrial EngineeringCenter for Collective Dynamics of Complex Systems, Binghamton UniversityBinghamtonUSA

Personalised recommendations