Age-related changes in “cortical” 1/f dynamics are linked to cardiac activity

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The present study addresses whether physiological signals influence aperiodic brain activity with a focus on age-related changes. The authors report age effects on aperiodic cardiac activity derived from ECG in low and high-frequency ranges in roughly 2300 participants from four different sites. Slopes of the ECGs were associated with common heart variability measures, which, according to the authors, shows that ECG, even at higher frequencies, conveys meaningful information. Using temporal response functions on concurrent ECG and M/EEG time series, the authors demonstrate that cardiac activity is instantaneously reflected in neural recordings, even after applying ICA analysis to remove cardiac activity. This was more strongly the case for EEG than MEG data. Finally, spectral parameterization was done in large-scale resting-state MEG and ECG data in individuals between 18 and 88 years, and age effects were tested. A steepening of spectral slopes with age was observed particularly for ECG and, to a lesser extent, in cleaned MEG data in most frequency ranges and sensors investigated. The authors conclude that commonly observed age effects on neural aperiodic activity can mainly be explained by cardiac activity.

Strengths:

Compared to previous investigations, the authors demonstrate the effects of aging on the spectral slope in the currently largest MEG dataset with equal age distribution available. Their efforts of replicating observed effects in another large MEG dataset and considering potential confounding by ocular activity, head movements, or preprocessing methods are commendable and valuable to the community. This study also employs a wide range of fitting ranges and two commonly used algorithms for spectral parameterization of neural and cardiac activity, hence providing a comprehensive overview of the impact of methodological choices. Based on their findings, the authors give recommendations for the separation of physiological and neural sources of aperiodic activity.

Weaknesses:

While the aim of the study is well-motivated and analyses rigorously conducted, the overall structure of the manuscript, as it stands now, is partially misleading. Some of the described results are not well-embedded and lack discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

I previously reviewed this important and timely manuscript at a previous journal where, after two rounds of review, I recommended publication. Because eLife practices an open reviewing format, I will recapitulate some of my previous comments here, for the scientific record.

In that previous review, I revealed my identity to help reassure the authors that I was doing my best to remain unbiased because I work in this area and some of the authors' results directly impact my prior research. I was genuinely excited to see the earlier preprint version of this paper when it first appeared. I get a lot of joy out of trying to - collectively, as a field - really understand the nature of our data, and I continue to commend the authors here for pushing at the sources of aperiodic activity!

In their manuscript, Schmidt and colleagues provide a very compelling, convincing, thorough, and measured set of analyses. Previously I recommended that the push even further, and they added the current Figure 5 analysis of event-related changes in the ECG during working memory. In my opinion this result practically warrants a separate paper its own!

The literature analysis is very clever, and expanded upon from any other prior version I've seen.

In my previous review, the broadest, most high-level comment I wanted to make was that authors are correct. We (in my lab) have tried to be measured in our approach to talking about aperiodic analyses - including adopting measuring ECG when possible now - because there are so many sources of aperiodic activity: neural, ECG, respiration, skin conductance, muscle activity, electrode impedances, room noise, electronics noise, etc. The authors discuss this all very clearly, and I commend them on that. We, as a field, should move more toward a model where we can account for all of those sources of noise together. (This was less of an action item, and more of an inclusion of a comment for the record.)

I also very much appreciate the authors' excellent commentary regarding the physiological effects that pharmacological challenges such as propofol and ketamine also have on non-neural (autonomic) functions such as ECG. Previously I also asked them to discuss the possibility that, while their manuscript focuses on aperiodic activity, it is possible that the wealth of literature regarding age-related changes in "oscillatory" activity might be driven partly by age-related changes in neural (or non-neural, ECG-related) changes in aperiodic activity. They have included a nice discussion on this, and I'm excited about the possibilities for cognitive neuroscience as we move more in this direction.

Finally, I previously asked for recommendations on how to proceed. The authors convinced me that we should care about how the ECG might impact our field potential measures, but how do I, as a relative novice, proceed. They now include three strong recommendations at the end of their manuscript that I find to be very helpful.

As was obvious from previous review, I consider this to be an important and impactful cautionary report, that is incredibly well supported by multiple thorough analyses. The authors have done an excellent job responding to all my previous comments and concerns and, in my estimation, those of the previous reviewers as well.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Schmidt et al., aimed to provide an extremely comprehensive demonstration of the influence cardiac electromagnetic fields have on the relationship between age and the aperiodic slope measured from electroencephalographic (EEG) and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data.

Strengths:

Schmidt et al., used a multiverse approach to show that the cardiac influence on this relationship is considerable, by testing a wide range of different analysis parameters (including extensive testing of different frequency ranges assessed to determine the aperiodic fit), algorithms (including different artifact reduction approaches and different aperiodic fitting algorithms), and multiple large datasets to provide conclusions that are robust to the vast majority of potential experimental variations.

The study showed that across these different analytical variations, the cardiac contribution to aperiodic activity measured using EEG and MEG is considerable, and likely influences the relationship between aperiodic activity and age to a greater extent than the influence of neural activity.

Their findings have significant implications for all future research that aims to assess aperiodic neural activity, suggesting control for the influence of cardiac fields is essential.

Weaknesses:

Figure 4I: The regressions explained here seem to contain a very large number of potential predictors. Based on the way it is currently written, I'm assuming it includes all sensors for both the ECG component and ECG rejected conditions?

I'm not sure about the logic of taking a complete signal, decomposing it with ICA to separate out the ECG and non-ECG signals, then including these latent contributions to the full signal back into the same regression model. It seems that there could be some circularity or redundancy in doing so. Can the authors provide a justification for why this is a valid approach?

I'm not sure whether there is good evidence or rationale to support the statement in the discussion that the presence of the ECG signal in reference electrodes makes it more difficult to isolate independent ECG components. The ICA algorithm will still function to detect common voltage shifts from the ECG as statistically independent from other voltage shifts, even if they're spread across all electrodes due to the referencing montage. I would suggest there are other reasons why the ICA might lead to imperfect separation of the ECG component (assumption of the same number of source components as sensors, non-Gaussian assumption, assumption of independence of source activities).

The inclusion of only 32 channels in the EEG data might also have reduced the performance of ICA, increasing the chances of imperfect component separation and the mixing of cardiac artifacts into the neural components, whereas the higher number of sensors in the MEG data would enable better component separation. This could explain the difference between EEG and MEG in the ability to clean the ECG artifact (and perhaps higher-density EEG recordings would not show the same issue).

In addition to the inability to effectively clean the ECG artifact from EEG data, ICA and other component subtraction methods have also all been shown to distort neural activity in periods that aren't affected by the artifact due to the ubiquitous issue of imperfect component separation (https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.06.597688). As such, component subtraction-based (as well as regression-based) removal of the cardiac artifact might also distort the neural contributions to the aperiodic signal, so even methods to adequately address the cardiac artifact might not solve the problem explained in the study. This poses an additional potential confound to the "M/EEG without ECG" conditions.

Literature Analysis, Page 23: was there a method applied to address studies that report reducing artifacts in general, but are not specific to a single type of artifact? For example, there are automated methods for cleaning EEG data that use ICLabel (a machine learning algorithm) to delete "artifact" components. Within these studies, the cardiac artifact will not be mentioned specifically, but is included under "artifacts".

Statistical inferences, page 23: as far as I can tell, no methods to control for multiple comparisons were implemented. Many of the statistical comparisons were not independent (or even overlapped with similar analyses in the full analysis space to a large extent), so I wouldn't expect strong multiple comparison controls. But addressing this point to some extent would be useful (or clarifying how it has already been addressed if I've missed something).

Methods:

Applying ICA components from 1Hz high pass filtered data back to the 0.1Hz filtered data leads to worse artifact cleaning performance, as the contribution of the artifact in the 0.1Hz to 1Hz frequency band is not addressed (see Bailey, N. W., Hill, A. T., Biabani, M., Murphy, O. W., Rogasch, N. C., McQueen, B., ... & Fitzgerald, P. B. (2023). RELAX part 2: A fully automated EEG data cleaning algorithm that is applicable to Event-Related-Potentials. Clinical Neurophysiology, result reported in the supplementary materials). This might explain some of the lower frequency slope results (which include a lower frequency limit <1Hz) in the EEG data - the EEG cleaning method is just not addressing the cardiac artifact in that frequency range (although it certainly wouldn't explain all of the results).

It looks like no methods were implemented to address muscle artifacts. These can affect the slope of EEG activity at higher frequencies. Perhaps the Riemannian Potato addressed these artifacts, but I suspect it wouldn't eliminate all muscle activity. As such, I would be concerned that remaining muscle artifacts affected some of the results, particularly those that included high frequency ranges in the aperiodic estimate. Perhaps if muscle activity were left in the EEG data, it could have disrupted the ability to detect a relationship between age and 1/f slope in a way that didn't disrupt the same relationship in the cardiac data (although I suspect it wouldn't reverse the overall conclusions given the number of converging results including in lower frequency bands). Is there a quick validity analysis the authors can implement to confirm muscle artifacts haven't negatively affected their results? I note that an analysis of head movement in the MEG is provided on page 32, but it would be more robust to show that removing ICA components reflecting muscle doesn't change the results. The results/conclusions of the following study might be useful for objectively detecting probable muscle artifact components: Fitzgibbon, S. P., DeLosAngeles, D., Lewis, T. W., Powers, D. M. W., Grummett, T. S., Whitham, E. M., ... & Pope, K. J. (2016). Automatic determination of EMG-contaminated components and validation of independent component analysis using EEG during pharmacologic paralysis. Clinical neurophysiology, 127(3), 1781-1793.