Understanding the electrophysiological basis of resting state networks (RSNs) in the human brain is a critical step towards elucidating how inter-areal connectivity supports healthy brain function. In recent years, the relationship between RSNs (typically measured using haemodynamic signals) and electrophysiology has been explored using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). Significant progress has been made, with similar spatial structure observable in both modalities. However, there is a pressing need to understand this relationship beyond simple visual similarity of RSN patterns. Here, we introduce a mathematical model to predict fMRI-based RSNs using MEG. Our unique model, based upon a multivariate Taylor series, incorporates both phase and amplitude based MEG connectivity metrics, as well as linear and non-linear interactions within and between neural oscillations measured in multiple frequency bands. We show that including non-linear interactions, multiple frequency bands and cross-frequency terms significantly improves fMRI network prediction. This shows that fMRI connectivity is not only the result of direct electrophysiological connections, but is also driven by the overlap of connectivity profiles between separate regions. Our results indicate that a complete understanding of the electrophysiological basis of RSNs goes beyond simple frequency-specific analysis, and further exploration of non-linear and cross-frequency interactions will shed new light on distributed network connectivity, and its perturbation in pathology.@en

Neuronal oscillations exist across a broad frequency spectrum, and are thought to provide a mechanism of interaction between spatially separated brain regions. Since ongoing mental activity necessitates the simultaneous formation of multiple networks, it seems likely that the brain employs interactions within multiple frequency bands, as well as cross-frequency coupling, to support such networks. Here, we propose a multi-layer network framework that elucidates this pan-spectral picture of network interactions. Our network consists of multiple layers (frequency-band specific networks) that influence each other via inter-layer (cross-frequency) coupling. Applying this model to MEG resting-state data and using envelope correlations as connectivity metric, we demonstrate strong dependency between within layer structure and inter-layer coupling, indicating that networks obtained in different frequency bands do not act as independent entities. More specifically, our results suggest that frequency band specific networks are characterised by a common structure seen across all layers, superimposed by layer specific connectivity, and inter-layer coupling is most strongly associated with this common mode. Finally, using a biophysical model, we demonstrate that there are two regimes of multi-layer network behaviour; one in which different layers are independent and a second in which they operate highly dependent. Results suggest that the healthy human brain operates at the transition point between these regimes, allowing for integration and segregation between layers. Overall, our observations show that a complete picture of global brain network connectivity requires integration of connectivity patterns across the full frequency spectrum.@en

Neuronal oscillations exist across a broad frequency spectrum, and are thought to provide a mechanism of interaction between spatially separated brain regions. Since ongoing mental activity necessitates the simultaneous formation of multiple networks, it seems likely that the brain employs interactions within multiple frequency bands, as well as cross-frequency coupling, to support such networks. Here, we propose a multi-layer network framework that elucidates this pan-spectral picture of network interactions. Our network consists of multiple layers (frequency-band specific networks) that influence each other via inter-layer (cross-frequency) coupling. Applying this model to MEG resting-state data and using envelope correlations as connectivity metric, we demonstrate strong dependency between within layer structure and inter-layer coupling, indicating that networks obtained in different frequency bands do not act as independent entities. More specifically, our results suggest that frequency band specific networks are characterised by a common structure seen across all layers, superimposed by layer specific connectivity, and inter-layer coupling is most strongly associated with this common mode. Finally, using a biophysical model, we demonstrate that there are two regimes of multi-layer network behaviour; one in which different layers are independent and a second in which they operate highly dependent. Results suggest that the healthy human brain operates at the transition point between these regimes, allowing for integration and segregation between layers. Overall, our observations show that a complete picture of global brain network connectivity requires integration of connectivity patterns across the full frequency spectrum.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

There is an increasing awareness of the advantages of multi-modal neuroimaging. Networks obtained from different modalities are usually treated in isolation, which is however contradictory to accumulating evidence that these networks show non-trivial interdependencies. Even networks obtained from a single modality, such as frequency-band specific functional networks measured from magnetoencephalography (MEG) are often treated independently. Here, we discuss how a multilayer network framework allows for integration of multiple networks into a single network description and how graph metrics can be applied to quantify multilayer network organisation for group comparison. We analyse how well-known biases for single layer networks, such as effects of group differences in link density and/or average connectivity, influence multilayer networks, and we compare four schemes that aim to correct for such biases: the minimum spanning tree (MST), effective graph resistance cost minimisation, efficiency cost optimisation (ECO) and a normalisation scheme based on singular value decomposition (SVD). These schemes can be applied to the layers independently or to the multilayer network as a whole. For correction applied to whole multilayer networks, only the SVD showed sufficient bias correction. For correction applied to individual layers, three schemes (ECO, MST, SVD) could correct for biases. By using generative models as well as empirical MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we further demonstrated that all schemes were sensitive to identify network topology when the original networks were perturbed. In conclusion, uncorrected multilayer network analysis leads to biases. These biases may differ between centres and studies and could consequently lead to unreproducible results in a similar manner as for single layer networks. We therefore recommend using correction schemes prior to multilayer network analysis for group comparisons.@en

Large-scale neurophysiological networks are often reconstructed from band-pass filtered time series derived from magnetoencephalography (MEG) data. Common practice is to reconstruct these networks separately for different frequency bands and to treat them independently. Recent evidence suggests that this separation may be inadequate, as there can be significant coupling between frequency bands (interlayer connectivity). A multilayer network approach offers a solution to analyze frequency-specific networks in one framework. We propose to use a recently developed network reconstruction method in conjunction with phase oscillator models to estimate interlayer connectivity that optimally fits the empirical data. This approach determines interlayer connectivity based on observed frequency-specific time series of the phase and a connectome derived from diffusion weighted imaging. The performance of this interlayer reconstruction method was evaluated in-silico. Our reconstruction of the underlying interlayer connectivity agreed to very high degree with the ground truth. Subsequently, we applied our method to empirical resting-state MEG data obtained from healthy subjects and reconstructed two-layered networks consisting of either alpha-to-beta or theta-to-gamma band connectivity. Our analysis revealed that interlayer connectivity is dominated by a multiplex structure, i.e. by one-to-one interactions for both alpha-to-beta band and theta-to-gamma band networks. For theta-gamma band networks, we also found a plenitude of interlayer connections between distant nodes, though weaker connectivity relative to the one-to-one connections. Our work is an stepping stone towards the identification of interdependencies across frequency-specific networks. Our results lay the ground for the use of the promising multilayer framework in this field with more-informed and justified interlayer connections. @en