This study explores the application of Recurrence Quantitative Analysis (RQA) to EEG data in subjects with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Healthy Controls (HC). By focusing on the Default Mode Network (DMN) and Central Executive Network (CEN), this research aims to uncover distinct recurrence patterns in neural activity. The EEG recordings were processed to extract source time courses, followed by the computation of the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) and subsequent RQA. Significant differences in recurrence metrics between MCI and HC groups were observed, including significantly higher LAM/DET, lower TT, lower DET, lower L, lower L_entr, and lower V_entr in MCI. These findings suggest that RQA metrics could serve as potential biomarkers for early detection and monitoring of cognitive impairment. The grid search results revealed the highest classification performance using a combination of DMN, CEN, and Executive Function networks with the HighGamma frequency range, achieving a mean AUC of 0.878.
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a transitional stage between the cognitive decline associated with normal aging and the more severe decline of dementia, particularly Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Characterized by cognitive deficits that exceed normal age-related expectations but do not significantly interfere with daily activities, MCI represents a critical period for potential intervention and treatment. Understanding the neural mechanisms underlying MCI is crucial for developing early diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies.
One promising avenue for investigating these mechanisms is through the analysis of neural oscillatory dynamics using EEG. Traditional EEG analysis techniques have provided valuable insights into brain function; however, they often fall short in capturing the complexity of neural interactions. Recent advances in signal processing, such as Recurrence Quantitative Analysis (RQA) Zbilut and Webber Jr. (1992), offer new opportunities to delve deeper into the temporal and spatial dynamics of neural activity.
RQA Marwan et al. (2007) is particularly well-suited for analyzing nonlinear and non-stationary time series data, making it an ideal tool for studying the brain's complex neural networks. This study focuses on two key networks: the Default Mode Network (DMN) and the Central Executive Network (CEN). The DMN is associated with self-referential thinking and memory, while the CEN is involved in cognitive control and executive functions. Disruptions in these networks have been linked to various cognitive disorders, including MCI and AD.
Previous research has highlighted changes in cortical thickness, glucose metabolism, and functional connectivity in MCI patients. Chand et al. (2017) discussed the disrupted control of the Salience Network over the DMN and CEN, suggesting it could serve as a neuroimaging biomarker for cognitive impairment in MCI individuals. Miraglia et al. (2020) pointed out that the Small World Index in the DMN predicts the progression from MCI to dementia, indicating significant alterations in gamma band activity. Furthermore, Caravaglios et al. (2022) analyzed EEG data to compare resting-state networks between amnestic MCI and healthy elderly individuals, revealing differences in brain region activities between the two groups.
Wu et al. (2022) found specific functional alterations in the dorsal attention network (DAN) in MCI through an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Disrupted interactions among the hippocampal, dorsal attention, and central-executive networks in amnestic MCI were reported by Chand et al. (2018), affecting the modulation of activity between the hippocampal network and CEN. Li et al. (2020) explored changes in brain function networks in amnestic MCI using resting-state fMRI and independent component analysis, uncovering decreased functional connectivity in the DMN.
Song et al. (2021) identified specific functional alterations in the Salience Network (SN) and its interactions with other networks in MCI through a meta-analysis of 30 neuroimaging studies. Additionally, Pagen et al. (2020) discussed the negative correlation between the cerebral and cerebellar default mode networks' interaction during rest in older individuals, impacting cognitive functioning.
In recent our research Furman et al. (2022), a similar approach involving Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) and RQA was tested across comparable frequency ranges. This methodology provided initial insights into the neural dynamics. However, this study presents an updated version of the methodology by replacing STFT with the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT). The HHT, derived from Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) Huang et al. (1998), provides instantaneous frequencies without the need for predefined windows, resulting in clearer and sharper recurrence patterns. This enhancement allows for the detection of high-frequency components and more precise recurrence structures, improving the analysis of the complex oscillatory dynamics associated with MCI.
MCI subjects exhibit distinct recurrence patterns in the Default Mode Network (DMN) and Central Executive Network (CEN) compared to Healthy Controls (HC), reflecting underlying neural alterations associated with cognitive impairment.
This hypothesis is grounded in the understanding that MCI involves changes in neural oscillatory dynamics, which can be effectively captured and analyzed using RQA. By focusing on the specific networks, this study seeks to uncover specific recurrence patterns that differentiate MCI subjects from HC.
Participants for this study were meticulously selected from a larger dataset encompassing individuals in various cognitive states, including Healthy Elders (HC) and those with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). This dataset was provided by Lazarou et al. (2020).
Group Selection Criteria:
To ensure high-quality EEG data, segments with artifacts such as eye blinks, muscle movements, and non-cerebral activities were excluded. Additionally, segments affected by noise from electrical power lines or with unacceptable channels that could not be interpolated were also excluded. Each segment included in the analysis was required to be free of artifacts, noise, and bad channels, with a minimum duration of 30 seconds to ensure sufficient data for robust analysis.
From this selection process, 78 MCI participants' and 31 HC participants' EEG recordings were deemed suitable for the study, resulting in 2758 segments for the MCI group and 1250 segments for the HC group that passed the quality thresholds.
EEG data collection was conducted using the EGI GES 300 system with 256 channels, capturing high-density EEG recordings from participants. The recordings were part of an experimental setup designed to capture resting-state EEG activity, where subjects alternated between opening and closing their eyes upon the experimenter's request during a ~9-minute session.
EEG Recording Criteria and Preprocessing:
*Fig.1 Quality check plot for MCI Subject 1. The figure is divided into several sections displaying different aspects of EEG spectral data for a 61.6-second segment from subject i052. On the left, a barplot illustrates the relative bandpower within standard EEG frequency bands, with the Alpha band (8-12 Hz) demonstrating the highest relative power, followed by
Beta, Delta, Sigma, Theta and Gamma bands. Centered, a Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot shows the distribution of power across frequencies ranging from 1 to 100 Hz, with multiple traces likely indicating different channels. The PSD exhibits a characteristic decrease in power with increasing frequency, with a notable peak in the Alpha band. An inset spherical head model highlights the distribution of Gamma band activity. Below the PSD, topographic maps for each frequency band display the power distribution across the scalp, with red tones indicating higher power levels. Delta band activity is broadly distributed, Theta shows frontal prominence, Alpha is concentrated posteriorly, Beta and Gamma reveal more varied spatial distributions.*
Preprocessed EEG segments were used for source localization analysis to extract source time courses (STCs) from predefined Regions of Interest (ROIs) within the brain. These ROIs were derived from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) combined atlas, providing a comprehensive framework for detailed brain mapping and connectomics research. The selected ROIs encompassed key networks involved in cognitive functioning.
Fig.2 Selected Regions of Interest (ROIs) for source localization analysis. The figure displays the 42 ROIs defined by the Human Connectome Project (HCP) combined atlas. Deep brain structures such as the thalamus are not present in this figure.
A set of mne functions was used to compute STCs, employing sLORETA with the ico4 setting, snr of 0.5, and pos of 5.0, using the fsaverage brain template for inverse modeling. The focus was on meaningful regions within the HCPMMP1_combined atlas using the MNE-Python library.
Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) Huang et al. (1998) is a data-driven approach that decomposes a signal into a set of Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs). This method is particularly effective for analyzing nonlinear and non-stationary time series, making it suitable for EEG data which often exhibit such characteristics.
Computation Methodology:
Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs):
Data Preparation:
IMF Extraction:
Fig.3 Example of an Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) obtained through Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD). The IMF represents a simple oscillatory mode extracted from the EEG signal, highlighting the decomposition of the signal into distinct frequency components.
The Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) is applied to the IMFs obtained from EMD to derive instantaneous frequency information. This method provides a detailed time-frequency representation of the signal, which is crucial for analyzing the complex oscillatory behavior of neural activity.
Computation Methodology:
Hilbert-Huang Transform Application:
Instantaneous Frequency Calculation:
Time-Frequency Representation:
Fig.4 Original signal and its Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) representation. The HHT provides instantaneous frequency information, enabling a detailed time-frequency analysis of the signal's oscillatory dynamics.
Understanding the neural dynamics in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) was achieved through the application of Recurrence Quantitative Analysis (RQA) to EEG data. RQA is known for its efficacy in analyzing nonlinear and non-stationary time series, making it well-suited for exploring the complex oscillatory dynamics in the brain's neural networks.
Computation Methodology:
Data Preparation:
Recurrence Plot (RP) Matrix Creation:
nbr) was set to 0.0001. This fine-grained resolution is critical for capturing subtle recurrence patterns, which are essential for distinguishing between MCI and Healthy Controls (HC).RQA Metric Extraction:
Fig.5 Recurrence Quantitative Analysis (RQA) pipeline for EEG data processing. The methodology involves extracting data points from the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) results, creating a Recurrence Plot (RP) matrix, and computing various RQA metrics to analyze the neural dynamics within specific frequency ranges. Segment of Default Mode Network (DMN) is used as an example network for this illustration.
Justification for Using a Fixed Radius of 0.0001:
In previous RQA methodologies, especially those involving traditional embedding techniques like time-delayed embedding or Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT),
it was necessary to specify a time delay or window size. These specifications often led to blurred recurrence plots due to the averaging effects inherent in these methods during discretization. Blurriness in the RP matrix can obscure fine details, making it challenging to discern precise recurrence patterns.
However, with the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) derived from Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), the situation improves significantly (Why use EMD?). HHT provides instantaneous frequencies without the need for predefined windows or time delays, resulting in much clearer and sharper recurrence patterns. This enhanced clarity allows for the detection of high-frequency components and more precise recurrence structures.
Given this context, the choice of a fixed radius (nbr) of 0.0001 becomes crucial. Here’s why:
Enhanced Clarity and Sharpness: Without the need for windowing, the HHT method produces instantaneous responses, eliminating the blur typically seen in RPs created using traditional methods. The small radius ensures that even minor recurrences are captured, providing a high-resolution view of the data.
Detection of Subtle Patterns: The fine resolution (0.0001) is particularly effective in capturing subtle recurrence patterns, which are essential for distinguishing the nuanced neural dynamics between MCI and HC subjects. This granularity is vital for identifying potential biomarkers for cognitive impairment.
Visibility of High Frequencies: The HHT approach allows for the inclusion of high-frequency components in the analysis. The small fixed radius is sensitive enough to detect recurrences in these higher frequencies, which are often missed with larger thresholds.
To analyze the EEG data and extract relevant features for distinguishing between Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Healthy Controls (HC), several steps were undertaken involving data selection, preprocessing, and classification.
The features were initially loaded and concatenated from two CSV files, one for MCI subjects and one for HC subjects, using the pd.read_csv and pd.concat functions. The columns of the concatenated dataframe were then printed to verify the structure.
The data were filtered to include only specific Regions of Interest (ROIs) and frequency ranges. The selected ROIs were 'Default Mode Network (DMN)', 'Central Executive Network (CEN)', and 'Executive Function and Decision Making'. The selected frequency range was 'HighGamma'.
The specific features for analysis were then selected, including various RQA (Quantification of Recurrence Plots) metrics:
The features were visualized using histograms to explore their distributions and identify potential differences between MCI and HC groups. Imbalanced classes from this dataset affected the visualization, making it challenging to discern clear patterns. However, the histograms provided a preliminary overview of the feature distributions.
Fig.6 Histograms of 'RR', 'TT', 'DET', 'L', 'L_entr', 'V_entr', 'W_entr', 'LAM/DET' features for MCI and HC groups. The histograms provide an overview of the feature distributions, highlighting potential differences between the two groups.
Density plots were generated to visualize the feature distributions more clearly and identify any overlapping regions between MCI and HC groups. The density plots provided a more nuanced view of the feature distributions, allowing for a detailed comparison between the two groups.
Fig.7 Density plots of 'RR', 'TT', 'DET', 'L', 'L_entr', 'V_entr', 'W_entr', 'LAM/DET' features for MCI and HC groups. The plots offer a detailed comparison of the feature distributions, highlighting any overlapping regions between the two groups.
Box plots were used to visualize the distribution of features across MCI and HC groups, providing insights into the median, quartiles, and outliers.
Fig.8 Box plots of 'RR', 'TT', 'DET', 'L', 'L_entr', 'V_entr', 'W_entr', 'LAM/DET' features for MCI and HC groups. The plots illustrate the distribution of features, including the median, quartiles, and outliers, allowing for a detailed comparison between the two groups.
Violin plots were generated to combine the benefits of box plots and density plots, providing a comprehensive view of the feature distributions across MCI and HC groups.
Fig.9 Violin plots of 'RR', 'TT', 'DET', 'L', 'L_entr', 'V_entr', 'W_entr', 'LAM/DET' features for MCI and HC groups.
The selected ROIs were 'Default Mode Network (DMN)', 'Central Executive Network (CEN)', and 'Executive Function and Decision Making'. The selected frequency range was 'HighGamma'.
The classification was performed using an XGBClassifier (XGBoost) with GroupKFold (GroupKFold) cross-validation. This approach ensured that segments from the same EEG recording were kept together in the train/test splits.
Label Encoding: String labels for the groups were converted to integers using LabelEncoder.
Feature Scaling: The features were standardized using StandardScaler.
Model Training and Evaluation: The XGBClassifier was trained and evaluated using ROC AUC scores, along with generating classification reports for each fold.
Detailed Steps:
LabelEncoder was used to transform the string labels for 'Group' into integer values suitable for the classification algorithm.X was prepared by selecting relevant RQA metrics and excluding non-essential columns. The target labels y were set using the encoded group labels. The EEG segments were grouped using the 'EEGCode' to ensure segments from the same recording stayed together during cross-validation.GroupKFold was defined with 5 splits to maintain data integrity within the train/test splits.XGBClassifier was initialized with specific parameters, including use_label_encoder=False, eval_metric='logloss', and random_state=42.cv.split.StandardScaler for both training and testing sets.roc_curve and auc.classification_report.An ROC curve was plotted to visualize the classifier's performance across the cross-validation folds. The mean ROC AUC score and standard deviation were calculated and displayed in the plot title.
Fig.10 ROC curve for the XGBClassifier across the cross-validation folds. The plot displays the true positive rate (sensitivity) against the false positive rate (1-specificity) for each fold, providing insights into the classifier's performance. The mean ROC AUC score and standard deviation are included in the plot title. The selected ROIs were 'Default Mode Network (DMN)', 'Central Executive Network (CEN)', and 'Executive Function and Decision Making'. The selected frequency range was 'HighGamma'.
A comprehensive grid search was conducted to
explore the classification performance across all possible combinations of networks and frequency ranges. The combinations included single ROIs, pairs of ROIs, and single and paired frequency ranges. The following table highlights the top, random mid, and bottom results based on the mean AUC score.
| ROI | FreqRange | Mean AUC | STD AUC | Mean Precision (MCI) | Mean Recall (MCI) | Mean F1-Score (MCI) | Mean Precision (HC) | Mean Recall (HC) | Mean F1-Score (HC) | Accuracy | Mean Precision (Macro) | Mean Recall (Macro) | Mean F1-Score (Macro) | Mean Precision (Weighted) | Mean Recall (Weighted) | Mean F1-Score (Weighted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Sensorimotor Network,Executive Function and Decision Making | HighGamma | 0.878295 | 0.00421374 | 0.844315 | 0.926245 | 0.878518 | 0.702926 | 0.585382 | 0.624736 | 0.825317 | 0.77362 | 0.755814 | 0.751627 | 0.839571 | 0.825317 | 0.821408 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Sensorimotor Network,Memory and Temporal Lobe Function,Executive Function and Decision Making | HighGamma | 0.876041 | 0.0078628 | 0.844346 | 0.928317 | 0.8797 | 0.70266 | 0.57489 | 0.620971 | 0.826676 | 0.773503 | 0.751603 | 0.750335 | 0.839852 | 0.826676 | 0.822568 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Sensorimotor Network | HighGamma | 0.874764 | 0.00956032 | 0.845972 | 0.930636 | 0.881527 | 0.713695 | 0.584604 | 0.630537 | 0.829667 | 0.779833 | 0.75762 | 0.756032 | 0.843428 | 0.829667 | 0.825496 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Memory and Temporal Lobe Function,Executive Function and Decision Making | HighGamma | 0.870781 | 0.00720156 | 0.844246 | 0.923164 | 0.876843 | 0.697125 | 0.587317 | 0.624279 | 0.823469 | 0.770685 | 0.755241 | 0.750561 | 0.837457 | 0.823469 | 0.819398 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN) | HighGamma | 0.870417 | 0.0135892 | 0.84819 | 0.924812 | 0.880118 | 0.700757 | 0.592752 | 0.630177 | 0.828151 | 0.774474 | 0.758782 | 0.755147 | 0.841739 | 0.828151 | 0.824832 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Sensorimotor Network,Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | HighGamma | 0.870388 | 0.00781509 | 0.843314 | 0.928589 | 0.878847 | 0.706162 | 0.577245 | 0.622896 | 0.825741 | 0.774738 | 0.752917 | 0.750872 | 0.839523 | 0.825741 | 0.820991 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | HighGamma | 0.870285 | 0.0168339 | 0.844573 | 0.932203 | 0.880666 | 0.712112 | 0.571522 | 0.62234 | 0.827961 | 0.778343 | 0.751863 | 0.751503 | 0.842953 | 0.827961 | 0.822511 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Executive Function and Decision Making | HighGamma | 0.870196 | 0.00650334 | 0.845417 | 0.926362 | 0.878571 | 0.700767 | 0.586477 | 0.624065 | 0.824935 | 0.773092 | 0.756419 | 0.751318 | 0.841542 | 0.824935 | 0.821204 |
| Central Executive Network (CEN) | HighGamma | 0.86969 | 0.0188211 | 0.843486 | 0.917503 | 0.873249 | 0.683792 | 0.584594 | 0.614866 | 0.817929 | 0.763639 | 0.751049 | 0.744057 | 0.835579 | 0.817929 | 0.814896 |
| Central Executive Network (CEN),Sensorimotor Network,Executive Function and Decision Making | HighGamma | 0.868184 | 0.0119166 | 0.840178 | 0.921295 | 0.873093 | 0.686923 | 0.572792 | 0.607855 | 0.816821 | 0.763551 | 0.747044 | 0.740474 | 0.834396 | 0.816821 | 0.812787 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Sensorimotor Network | Delta-Theta,Alpha-Beta,Sigma-Beta | 0.652418 | 0.0107011 | 0.753747 | 0.899727 | 0.811166 | 0.441416 | 0.22535 | 0.277715 | 0.708227 | 0.597582 | 0.562538 | 0.544441 | 0.71114 | 0.708227 | 0.676681 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Sensorimotor Network,Executive Function and Decision Making | Alpha-Beta,Sigma-Beta | 0.666774 | 0.0123778 | 0.758416 | 0.898809 | 0.81341 | 0.462242 | 0.253063 | 0.30226 | 0.712798 | 0.610329 | 0.575936 | 0.557835 | 0.720274 | 0.712798 | 0.684138 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Memory and Temporal Lobe Function,Executive Function and Decision Making | Delta-Theta,Sigma-Beta,Highbeta-Gamma | 0.698863 | 0.0116893 | 0.766809 | 0.911555 | 0.82416 | 0.515851 | 0.279645 | 0.3404 | 0.729986 | 0.64133 | 0.5956 | 0.58228 | 0.740368 | 0.729986 | 0.702511 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Sensorimotor Network,Executive Function and Decision Making | Alpha-Beta,Highbeta-Gamma | 0.726337 | 0.0109829 | 0.782536 | 0.896945 | 0.827927 | 0.536788 | 0.360048 | 0.409138 | 0.74166 | 0.659662 | 0.628496 | 0.618533 | 0.75598 | 0.74166 | 0.726021 |
| Sensorimotor Network,Memory and Temporal Lobe Function,Executive Function and Decision Making | Delta-Theta,HighGamma | 0.743708 | 0.0108806 | 0.782136 | 0.900511 | 0.829225 | 0.542206 | 0.35666 | 0.409823 | 0.743372 | 0.662171 | 0.628585 | 0.619524 | 0.756519 | 0.743372 | 0.726277 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Memory and Temporal Lobe Function,Executive Function and Decision Making | Alpha-Beta | 0.652856 | 0.00553202 | 0.758163 | 0.87491 | 0.802609 | 0.430315 | 0.268427 | 0.304639 | 0.699215 | 0.594239 | 0.571668 | 0.553624 | 0.710921 | 0.699215 | 0.677355 |
| Sensorimotor Network,Executive Function and Decision Making | Delta-Theta,Alpha-Beta | 0.634564 | 0.0118265 | 0.754866 | 0.888467 | 0.807315 | 0.430892 | 0.249175 | 0.291808 | 0.704652 | 0.592879 | 0.568821 | 0.549561 | 0.705816 | 0.704652 | 0.677164 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Delta-Theta,Highbeta-Gamma | 0.711625 | 0.0127884 | 0.772453 | 0.893423 | 0.820307 | 0.500815 | 0.316648 | 0.366898 | 0.728144 | 0.636634 | 0.605035 | 0.593602 | 0.740214 | 0.728144 | 0.709225 |
| Sensorimotor Network,Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Highbeta-Gamma,HighGamma | 0.807321 | 0.00831679 | 0.809113 | 0.905968 | 0.847938 | 0.610346 | 0.464272 | 0.509832 | 0.776689 | 0.70973 | 0.68512 | 0.678885 | 0.792474 | 0.776689 | 0.767377 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN),Central Executive Network (CEN),Memory and Temporal Lobe Function,Executive Function and Decision Making | Highbeta-Gamma | 0.799111 | 0.0115697 | 0.8097 | 0.897075 | 0.844471 | 0.59263 | 0.47047 | 0.505613 | 0.772004 | 0.701165 | 0.683772 | 0.675042 | 0.789347 | 0.772004 | 0.765141 |
| Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Delta-Theta,Sigma-Beta | 0.608513 | 0.0206794 | 0.745665 | 0.878621 | 0.796818 | 0.382707 | 0.20655 | 0.243505 | 0.686356 | 0.564186 | 0.542586 | 0.520162 | 0.69041 | 0.686356 | 0.657293 |
| Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Alpha-Beta | 0.608361 | 0.0201587 | 0.745038 | 0.857057 | 0.787181 | 0.362986 | 0.215475 | 0.248101 | 0.675018 | 0.554012 | 0.536266 | 0.517641 | 0.683334 | 0.675018 | 0.653483 |
| Central Executive Network (CEN) | Delta-Theta | 0.607571 | 0.0223961 | 0.755744 | 0.887775 | 0.806949 | 0.436851 | 0.251102 | 0.29421 | 0.703937 | 0.596298 | 0.569438 | 0.550579 | 0.7095 | 0.703937 | 0.676424 |
| Default Mode Network (DMN) | Delta-Theta | 0.607087 | 0.0178055 | 0.741002 | 0.864092 | 0.787354 | 0.352019 | 0.204519 | 0.230097 | 0.672755 | 0.546511 | 0.534305 | 0.508725 | 0.676361 | 0.672755 | 0.644925 |
| Executive Function and Decision Making | Delta-Theta | 0.607066 | 0.0439745 | 0.74744 | 0.860237 | 0.792321 | 0.368659 | 0.236443 | 0.274667 | 0.686919 | 0.558049 | 0.54834 | 0.533494 | 0.677631 | 0.686919 | 0.663999 |
| Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Delta-Theta,Alpha-Beta,Sigma-Beta | 0.6057 | 0.0164001 | 0.745878 | 0.880846 | 0.797511 | 0.385549 | 0.204867 | 0.241683 | 0.686747 | 0.565713 | 0.542857 | 0.519597 | 0.689839 | 0.686747 | 0.656536 |
| Sensorimotor Network,Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Delta-Theta | 0.603509 | 0.0326558 | 0.746829 | 0.874546 | 0.797521 | 0.376893 | 0.202848 | 0.250847 | 0.690333 | 0.561861 | 0.538697 | 0.524184 | 0.68845 | 0.690333 | 0.665101 |
| Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Delta-Theta | 0.594775 | 0.0316022 | 0.750363 | 0.870155 | 0.797112 | 0.391803 | 0.226263 | 0.268751 | 0.690322 | 0.571083 | 0.548209 | 0.532931 | 0.697299 | 0.690322 | 0.668677 |
| Sensorimotor Network | Delta-Theta | 0.589615 | 0.0146764 | 0.7462 | 0.870242 | 0.794589 | 0.37519 | 0.209716 | 0.251174 | 0.685776 | 0.560695 | 0.539979 | 0.522881 | 0.689476 | 0.685776 | 0.660966 |
| Memory and Temporal Lobe Function | Delta-Theta,Alpha-Beta | 0.584352 | 0.0165539 | 0.741964 | 0.870893 | 0.791697 | 0.359705 | 0.187661 | 0.227153 | 0.678986 | 0.550835 | 0.529277 | 0.509425 | 0.682017 | 0.678986 | 0.651852 |
The results of this study provide significant insights into the differences in recurrence patterns between MCI and HC groups. The selected ROIs were 'Default Mode Network (DMN)', 'Central Executive Network (CEN)', and 'Executive Function and Decision Making'. The selected frequency range was 'HighGamma'.
Key Findings:
Significantly Higher LAM/DET in MCI vs HC:
Significantly Lower TT in MCI vs HC:
Significantly Lower DET in MCI vs HC:
Significantly Lower L in MCI vs HC:
Significantly Lower L_entr in MCI vs HC:
Significantly Lower V_entr in MCI vs HC:
No Significant Differences in RR in MCI vs HC:
Interpretation of Significantly Higher LAM/DET in MCI vs HC
The LAM/DET metric, representing the ratio of laminarity to determinism, is a crucial indicator in Recurrence Quantitative Analysis (RQA) used to understand the underlying dynamics of time series data, such as EEG recordings. Here’s what a significantly higher LAM/DET ratio in MCI compared to HC might imply:
Increased Temporal Stability:
Higher LAM/DET Ratio:
Potential Implications for Cognitive Function:
The application of Recurrence Quantitative Analysis (RQA) to EEG data has revealed significant differences in the recurrence patterns between MCI and HC subjects, particularly in the Default Mode Network (DMN), Central Executive Network (CEN), and Executive Function networks within the HighGamma frequency range. Key findings include significantly higher LAM/DET, and lower TT, DET, L, L_entr, and V_entr in MCI subjects, suggesting more structured but less stable and less complex neural dynamics compared to healthy controls.
The higher LAM/DET ratio in MCI indicates increased temporal stability and potentially reduced cognitive flexibility, reflecting underlying neural rigidity.
Further research should explore the application of these findings in clinical settings and investigate the longitudinal changes in recurrence patterns to better understand the progression of MCI to more severe cognitive impairments, such as Alzheimer's Disease.