A multiplex of connectome trajectories enables several connectivity patterns in parallel

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper proposes an interesting perspective on the spatio-temporal relationship between FC in fMRI and electrophysiology. The study found that while similar network configurations are found in both modalities, there is a tendency for the networks to spatially converge more commonly at synchronous than asynchronous time points. However, my confidence in the findings and their interpretation is undermined by an apparent lack of justification for the expected outcomes for each of the proposed scenarios, and in the analysis pipeline itself.

Main Concerns

(1) Figure 1 makes sense to me conceptually, including the schematics of the trajectories, i.e.
Scenario 1: Temporally convergent, same trajectories through connectome state space
Scenario 2: Temporally divergent, different trajectories through connectome state space

However, based on my understanding I am concerned that these scenarios do not necessarily translate into the schematic CRP plots shown in Figure 2C, or the statements in the main text:

For Scenario 1: "epochs of cross-modal spatial similarity should occur more frequently at on-diagonal (synchronous) than off-diagonal (asynchronous) entries, resulting in an on-/off-diagonal ratio larger than unity"
For Scenario 2: "epochs of spatial similarity could occur equally likely at on-diagonal and off-diagonal entries (ratio≈1)"

Where do the authors get these statements and the schematics in Figure 2C from? Are they based on previous literature, theory, or simulations?
I am not convinced based on the evidence currently in the paper, that the ratio of off- to on-diagonal entries (and under what assumptions) is a definitive way to discriminate between scenarios 1 and 2.

For example, what about the case where the same network configuration reoccurs in both modalities at multiple time points? It seems to me that one would get a CRP with entries occurring equally on the on-diagonal as on the off-diagonal, regardless of whether the dynamics are matched between the two modalities or not (i.e. regardless of scenario 1 or 2 being true).

This thought experiment example might have a flaw in it, and the authors might ultimately be correct, but nonetheless, a systematic justification needs to be provided for using the ratio of off- to on-diagonal entries to discriminate between scenarios 1 and 2 (and under what assumptions it is valid).

In the absence of theory, a couple of ways I can think of to gain insight into this key aspect are:

(1) Use surrogate data for scenarios 1 and 2:
a. For scenario 1: Run the CRP using a single modality. E.g. feed in the EEG into the analysis as both modality 1 AND modality 2. This should provide at least one example of CRP under scenario 1 (although it does not ensure that all CRPs under this scenario will look like this, it is at least a useful sanity check)
b. For scenario 2: Run the CRP using a single modality plus a shuffled version. E.g. feed in the EEG into the analysis as both modality 1 AND a temporally shuffled version of the EEG as modality 2. The temporal shuffling of the EEG could be done by simply splitting the data into blocks of say ~10s and then shuffling them into a new order. This should provide a version of the CRP under scenario 2 (although it does not ensure that all CRPs under this scenario will look like this, it is at least a useful sanity check).

(2) Do simulations, with clearly specified assumptions, for scenarios 1 and 2. One way of doing this is to use a simplified (state-space) setup and randomly simulate N spatially fixed networks that are independently switching on and off over time (i.e. "activation" is 0 or 1). Note that this would result in a N-dimensional connectome state space.

The authors would only need to worry about simulating the network activation time courses, i.e. they would not need to bother with specifying the spatial configuration of each network, instead, they would make the implied assumption that each of these networks has the same spatial configuration in modality 1 and modality 2.

With that assumption, the CRP calculation should simply correspond to calculating, at each time i in modality 1 and time j in modality 2, the number of networks that are activating in both modality 1 and modality 2, by using their activation time courses. Using this, one can simulate and compute the CRPs for the two scenarios:
a. Scenario 1: where the simulated activation timecourses are set to be the same between both modalities
b. Scenario 2: where the simulated activation timecourses are simulated separately for each of the modalities

(2) Choices in the analysis pipeline leading up to the computation of FC in fMRI or EEG will affect the quality of information available in the FC. For example, but not only, the choice of parcellation (in the study, the number of parcels is very high given the number of EEG sensors). I think it is important that we see the impact of the chosen pipeline on the time-averaged connectomes, an output that the field has some idea about what is sensible. This would give confidence that the information being used in the main analyses in the paper is based on a sensible footing and relates to what the field is used to thinking about in terms of FC. This should be trivial to compute, as it is just a case of averaging the time-varying FCs being used for the CRP over all time points. Admittedly, this approach is less useful for the intracranial EEG.

(3) Leakage correction. The paper states: "To mitigate this issue, we provide results from source-localized data both with and without leakage correction (supplementary and main text, respectively)." Given that FC in EEG is dominated by spatial leakage (see Hipp paper), then I cannot see how it can be justified to look at non-spatial leakage correction results at all, let alone put them up front as the main results. All main results/figures for the scalp EEG should be done using spatial leakage-corrected EEG data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study investigates the brain's functional connectivity (FC) dynamics across different timescales using simultaneous recordings of intracranial EEG/source-localized EEG and fMRI. The primary research goal was to determine which of three convergence/divergence scenarios is the most likely to occur.

The results indicate that despite similar FC patterns found in different data modalities, the time points were not aligned, indicating spatial convergence but temporal divergence.

The researchers also found that FC patterns in different frequencies do not overlap significantly, emphasizing the multi-frequency nature of brain connectivity. Such asynchronous activity across frequency bands supports the idea of multiple connectivity states that operate independently and are organized into a multiplex system.

Strengths:

The data supporting the authors' claims are convincing and come from simultaneous recordings of fMRI and iEEG/EEG, which has been recently developed and adapted.

The analysis methods are solid and involve a novel approach to analyzing the co-occurrence of FC patterns across modalities (cross-modal recurrence plot, CRP) and robust statistics, including replication of the main results using multiple operationalizations of the functional connectome (e.g., amplitude, orthogonalized, and phase-based coupling).

In addition, the authors provided a detailed interpretation of the results, placing them in the context of recent advances and understanding of the relationships between functional connectivity and cognitive states.

Weaknesses:

Despite the impressive work, the paper still lacks some analyses to make it complete.

Firstly, the effect of the window size is unclear, especially in the case of different frequencies where the number of cycles that fall in a window will vary drastically. A typical oscillation lasts just a few cycles (see Myrov et al., 2024), and brain states are usually short-lived because of meta-stability (see Roberts et al., 2019).

Secondly, the authors didn't examine frequencies lower than 1Hz despite similarities between fMRI and infra-slow oscillations found in prior literature (see Palva et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2023).

On a minor note, the phase-locking value (PLV) is positively biased for EEG data (see Palva et al., 2018) and a different metric for phase coupling could be a more appropriate choice (e.g., iPLV/wPLI, see Vinck et al., 2011). The repository with the code is also unavailable.