Brain hubs defined in the group do not overlap with regions of high inter-individual variability

• Published in: NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2023-08, Vol.277, p.120195-120195, Article 120195
• Main Authors: Smith, Derek M., Kraus, Brian T., Dworetsky, Ally, Gordon, Evan M., Gratton, Caterina
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brain - diagnostic imaging; Brain mapping; Connectome - methods; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Humans; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Nerve Net; Neural networks; Neural Pathways; Neuroimaging; Variation
• ISSN: 1053-8119; 1095-9572
• DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120195

•Connector hubs, regions connected to many networks, are often defined on group data.•Here we ask how variable group-level hubs are across people.•When defined with the participation coefficient, top hubs are similar across people.•Community density hubs overlap with locations of individual differences.•A spotlight search procedure can improve hub similarity with the group profile. Connector ‘hubs’ are brain regions with links to multiple networks. These regions are hypothesized to play a critical role in brain function. While hubs are often identified based on group-average functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, there is considerable inter-subject variation in the functional connectivity profiles of the brain, especially in association regions where hubs tend to be located. Here we investigated how group hubs are related to locations of inter-individual variability. To answer this question, we examined inter-individual variation at group-level hubs in both the Midnight Scan Club and Human Connectome Project datasets. The top group hubs defined based on the participation coefficient did not overlap strongly with the most prominent regions of inter-individual variation (termed ‘variants’ in prior work). These hubs have relatively strong similarity across participants and consistent cross-network profiles, similar to what was seen for many other areas of cortex. Consistency across participants was further improved when these hubs were allowed to shift slightly in local position. Thus, our results demonstrate that the top group hubs defined with the participation coefficient are generally consistent across people, suggesting they may represent conserved cross-network bridges. More caution is warranted with alternative hub measures, such as community density (which are based on spatial proximity to network borders) and intermediate hub regions which show higher correspondence to locations of individual variability.