Back

Variation in moment-to-moment brain state engagement changes across development and contributes to individual differences in executive function

Ye, J.; Tejavibulya, L.; Dai, W.; Cope, L. M.; Hardee, J. E.; Heitzeg, M. M.; Lichenstein, S.; Yip, S. W.; Banaschewski, T.; Baker, G. J.; Bokde, A. L. W.; Brühl, R.; Desrivieres, S.; Flor, H.; Gowland, P.; Grigis, A.; Heinz, A.; Martinot, J.-L.; Martinot, M.-L. P.; Artiges, E.; Nees, F.; Orfanos, D. P.; Poustka, L.; Hohmann, S.; Holz, N.; Baeuchl, C.; Smolka, M. N.; Vaidya, N.; Walter, H.; Whelan, R.; Schumann, G.; Garavan, H.; Chaarani, B.; Gee, D. G.; Baskin-Sommers, A.; Casey, B.; IMAGEN consortium, ; Scheinost, D.

2024-09-11 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.09.06.611627 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Neural variability, or variation in brain signals, facilitates dynamic brain responses to ongoing demands. This flexibility is important during development from childhood to young adulthood, a period characterized by rapid changes in experience. However, little is known about how variability in the engagement of recurring brain states changes during development. Such investigations would require the continuous assessment of multiple brain states concurrently. Here, we leverage a new computational framework to study state engagement variability (SEV) during development. A consistent pattern of SEV changing with age was identified across cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets (N>3000). SEV developmental trajectories stabilize around mid-adolescence, with timing varying by sex and brain state. SEV successfully predicts executive function (EF) in youths from an independent dataset. Worse EF is further linked to alterations in SEV development. These converging findings suggest SEV changes over development, allowing individuals to flexibly recruit various brain states to meet evolving needs.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.