Post on 12-May-2022
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of the Liberal Arts
DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES IN RESTING-STATE FUNCTIONAL
CONNECTIVITY IN BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER: A NETWORK
ANALYSIS APPROACH
A Thesis in
Psychology
by
Nathan T. Hall
© 2019 Nathan T. Hall
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
August 2019
ii
The thesis of Nathan T. Hall was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Michael N. Hallquist
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Thesis Adviser
Frank G. Hillary
Associate Professor of Psychology
Nancy A. Dennis
Associate Professor of Psychology
Melvin M. Mark
Professor of Psychology
Head of the Psychology Department
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
iii
ABSTRACT
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a clinical syndrome that typically emerges
during adolescence, a period of time when sensitivity to social cues is heightened across the
population. The current study of 82 adolescents and young adults (ages 13-30) with BPD
symptoms and age and sex matched healthy controls investigated developmental differences in
functional connectivity (FC) during this developmental period using resting-state fMRI. We
utilized a graph theory approach, computing FC between nodes of a 421 custom-built cortico-
striatal parcellation. Results suggest that across development, two nodes in the canonical salience
network in the right dorsal anterior insula (daINS) and right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) were
robustly altered in their global RSFC to nearly all intrinsic networks in adolescents with BPD
symptoms. Interestingly, while grouped in the same network, the TPJ was hypoconnected while
the daINS was hyperconnected to functionally distinct intrinsic networks. Post-hoc analyses
indicated a strong pattern of hyperconnectivity between the daINS and multiple regions in the
canonical dorsal attention network (DAN), which dynamically interacts with salience network to
control goal-directed action. Mediation analyses indicated that emotional instability fully
mediated the association between connectivity in the daINS and BPD symptoms. Results suggest
an enmeshment of distinct attentional networks in BPD, with a shift towards favoring the
salience network. Further, results indicated that across development, the ventral striatum, a
region that has been extensively implicated in reward learning and motivation, showed age-
related decreases in FC to regions of the mPFC and ACC in the BPD, whereas in the control
group, FC values increased which indicates that impaired developmental changes in value-based
decision-making processes may characterize the development of the disorder in adolescence.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….vi
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………….......vii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………..viii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION.…………………………………………………………………….1
Evidence of the neural etiology of BPD: fronto-limbic abnormalities………...……………2
Evidence of the neural etiology of BPD: social-cognitive and default mode abnormalities..5
Development of intrinsic network structure in adolescence………………………………...7
The current study…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….……9
Chapter 2. METHODS…………………………………………………………………………...11
Participants……………………………………………………….………...………….......11
Procedure………………………………………………………………………………......11
MR data acquisition and removal of high-motion subjects……….………………....12
RS-fMRI preprocessing procedures…...…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…..13
Analytic approach………………………………………………………………………….14
Nodal parcellation…………………………………………………………………...14
Pre-whitening and adjacency matrix generation…………………………………….16
Graph construction and module assignment………………………………………...18
Graph metrics………………………………………………………………………..20
Resting-state activity: amplitude of low frequency fluctuations (ALFF)…………...22
Confirmatory analyses amongst a priori nodes……………………………………...23
Logistic ridge regression analyses…………………………………………………...24
Post-hoc analysis: effective connectivity……………………………………………26
Exploratory whole-brain analysis……………………………………………………27
Post-hoc analyses: symptom measures……………………………………………...28
Post-hoc analyses: visual depiction of edges of interest…………………………….29
Chapter 3. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………30
Global analyses……………………………………………………………………………30
A priori analysis: fronto-limbic nodes…………………………………………………….30
A priori analysis: social/DMN nodes……………………………………………………...32
Whole-brain nodal centrality analyses…………………………………………………….32
Group differences……………………………………………………………………33
Age-related effects…………………………………………………………………..34
Chapter 4. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………..36
The role of the salience network in adolescent BPD…………………………………….37
Fronto-limbic hypothesis: the role of the ventral striatum……………………………….42
A note about the default mode network in the present study…………………………….45
Strengths and limitations…………………………………………………………………46
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….47
v
References………………………………………………………………………………………..49
Appendix A: Tables……………………………………………………………………………...70
Appendix B: Figures……………………………………………………………………………..59
Appendix C: Supplemental Tables………………………………………………………………86
Appendix D: Supplemental Figures……………………………………………………………...94
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Characteristics
Table 2: Results of the edge-wise a priori analysis
Table 3: Global Graph Metrics
Table 4: Whole-brain nodal centrality results
Table 5: Whole-brain nodal ALFF results
Table 6: Significant effects mediated through self-report scales
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Summary of group FC and strength distributions.
Figure 2: Finalized 421 node parcellation of the cortex, thalamus, and striatum.
Figure 3: Results from the usual suspects analyses.
Figure 4: dACC and VS directed connectivity results
Figure 5. Connectivity of the daINS.
Figure 6. Connectivity of the TPJ.
Figure 7. Connectivity of the VS.
Figure 8. Representative sampling of nodes that were significantly different between groups
regardless of age in whole-brain analyses.
Figure 9. Representative sampling of nodes that showed significant group x age interactions in
whole-brain analyses.
viii
Acknowledgements
This manuscript does not reflect the view of the National Institute of Mental Health or the
United States Government. This project was supported by the Mentored Research Scientist
Career Development Award (K01 MH097091, PI: Hallquist). I would like to thank the members
of my committee, Drs. Michael Hallquist, Frank Hillary, and Nancy Dennis for their time and
effort in providing thoughtful and respectful feedback on this project. I particular, I would like to
thank my primary academic mentor Michael Hallquist for his guidance and his steadfast
commitment to not only my academic training, but to my personal growth. I feel beyond lucky to
have you as a personal and professional mentor throughout my training. I can think of few
people in my life who have garnered as much of my respect as you have in my time as your
student.
The development of this project has not been a solitary effort but reflects the true value of
working with a number of highly gifted individuals. With that being said, I would like to thank
Dr. Hallquist’s team of researchers in Pittsburgh who provided him the personnel, equipment,
and support to collect this data during his time at the University of Pittsburgh. In particular,
Rajpreet Chahal, Dr. Hallquist’s former research coordinator, played a central role in organizing
the study and in data collection efforts. I’ve also been lucky enough to work with a wonderful
group of lab managers, programmers, and research assistants in the Developmental Personality
Neuroscience Lab at Penn State. In particular, Aleece Churney was crucially important in
leading early quality assurance efforts during my first year at Penn State. After Aleece’s
departure our lab was blessed when Melanie Glatz stepped in to fill Aleece’s role and over the
past year I have had the extreme pleasure of getting to know her both at work as an aspiring
clinical psychologist, and outside of work as a lover of life. Thank you for your friendship and
support throughout this process Mel. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, my lab mate and
close friend Alison Schreiber has never been anything but a steady source of emotional support
and encouragement throughout my time at Penn State. Thank you Ally-gash for always
challenging me intellectually, but supporting me personally.
I would also like to thank my past mentors at SUNY Binghamton for their instrumental
roles in sparking my interests in research in psychopathology and neuroscience: Steven Jay
Lynn, Mark Lenzenweger, and Brandon Gibb thank you for supporting me in my early years as
an undergraduate and post-graduate. I am lucky to have a supportive group of friends who have
been with me through the entire development of this project. Thank you, Lia, Chloe, Erin,
Natalia, Ben, Zach, Mel, and Alison, for being there for me throughout this process. Finally, I
would like to thank my parents Gerry Hall and Laura Zajchowski as well as my younger brother
Zach for their unwavering support from the very beginning and for working tirelessly to provide
me with the resources to succeed as a graduate student. Any success I have happened upon in life
belongs to you
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a serious psychiatric disorder occurring in
approximately 1-2% of the general population and comprising approximately 14% of the
inpatient population (Lenzenweger, Lane, Loranger, & Kessler, 2007; Modestin, Abrecht,
Tschaggelar, & Hoffmann, 1983). BPD is typified by affective volatility on rapid timescales
(often minutes to hours), chronic suicidality and self-harm, identity disturbance, intense and
tumultuous interpersonal relationships often characterized by vacillating between loving and
hating others, and a persistent pattern of impulsive behavior(American Psychiatric Association,
2013). Leading theories contend that borderline symptoms arise from interactions among
genetic, environmental, and psychosocial factors with the onset of symptoms typically occurring
in adolescence (APA, 2013; Crowell, Beauchaine, & Linehan, 2009). The claim that BPD
emerges in adolescence is supported by studies documenting that individuals with BPD often
first enter treatment at age 18 (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Khera, & Bleichmar, 2001), although
symptoms of BPD are likely present at an earlier age (Cohen, 2008; Zelkowitz et al., 2007). In
fact, Zanarini, et. al., (2006)found that approximately 30% of patients with BPD reported self-
harming for the first time before age 12 with another 30% beginning between the ages of 13 and
17, lending support to the idea that some borderline symptoms in adolescence may exhibit some
degree of homotypic continuity with BPD as it is currently conceptualized in adults.
Not only do symptoms of BPD typically emerge in adolescence, but research further
supports the notion that the symptoms of BPD in adolescence often tend to be more acute, as
adolescence is associated with mean-level increases in impulsive behavior, emotionality, and
sensitivity to social cues in the general population (Pfeifer et al., 2011; Steinberg et al., 2018). In
2
particular, self-harming and suicidal behaviors in addition to affective instability and impulsivity
sharply increase in the adolescent years for individuals with BPD (Kaess, Brunner, & Chanen,
2014). However, despite the well-documented severity of borderline pathology during this
crucial period of development, little is known about functional brain changes in adolescents with
BPD, representing an important gap in the literature. Further, the current study draws on
observations that the brain is a hierarchically organized network with specific modules, or
intrinsic networks, whose patterns of within and between-network connectivity help to organize
human behavior across disparate cognitive, socioemotional, and sensorimotor domains (Laird et
al., 2011). As we detail below, cognitive neuroscience studies of typically developing samples
suggest that the brain undergoes important changes in functional connectivity (FC) in
adolescence, making connectivity a clear target for investigation in this clinical population.
As little is known on FC differences in adolescents with BPD we elected to focus first on
two primary lines of thinking that run through the neuroimaging literature in adults with BPD. In
particular, fronto-limbic and socio-cognitive/default mode network alterations largely summarize
the dominant thinking about neural systems that underlie the etiological “core” of borderline
pathology, yet have been limited to studies of adults with BPD. We here provide a brief
summary of these threads and describe how taken together with evidence from developmental
neuroscience they make a case for the importance of studying the adolescent transition in
individuals with BPD.
Evidence of the neural etiology of BPD: fronto-limbic abnormalities
To date, studies of the neural correlates of BPD have been primarily informed by functional
neuroimaging studies in adults. Broadly, these studies have identified abnormalities in circuits
3
underlying emotion and social cognition. The first and perhaps oldest and most well-established
thread running through the BPD neuroimaging literature concerns abnormal fronto-limbic
activation and/or connectivity in task-based studies. The amygdala plays a central role in such
accounts, typically in combination with medial and dorsolateral portions of the prefrontal cortex
in addition to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The amygdala is involved in detecting threat
in the environment and encoding the emotional significance of stimuli (LeDoux, 2007); it also
plays a key role in the generation of the subjective experience of fear. Importantly, the amygdala
does not represent emotional experience in isolation. Rather, both human and nonhuman animal
research suggests that regions in the (particularly medial) prefrontal cortex and ACC
(particularly dorsal and rostral regions) encode key appraisal and regulatory signals that evaluate
and reorient emotional experience respectively (Etkin, Egner, & Kalisch, 2011).
A number of task-based activation studies find that patients with BPD show increased
activation of the amygdala and reduced activation of the prefrontal cortex to a range of emotional
stimuli (Donegan et al., 2003; Herpertz et al., 2001; Kamphausen et al., 2013; Minzenberg, Fan,
New, Tang, & Siever, 2007; Soloff, White, Omari, Ramaseshan, & Diwadkar, 2015). Such
findings have led to the hypothesis that hyperactivity of “emotion-producing” regions such as the
amygdala, in addition to hypoactivity of emotion-regulating regions in the PFC leads to the
emotion regulation difficulties seen in BPD. These findings were recently corroborated in a
meta-analysis which found increased BOLD activation in the left amygdala and decreased
activity in the bilateral dlPFC to negative emotional stimuli in BPD (Schulze, Schmahl, &
Niedtfeld, 2016).
However, results pertaining to hyperactivation of the amygdala have not been borne out in
4
all studies. For example, Dudas et. al., (2017) found hypoactivation of the amygdala across
emotional conditions, despite finding hyperconnectivity of the dlPFC and amygdala in their
disgust condition. Complicating matters further, a second meta-analysis of task-based activity
found conflicting results with the hyperactive amygdala account and found hypoactivation in the
right amygdala in response to negative emotion (Ruocco, Amirthavasagam, & Zakzanis, 2013).
However, the conflict between these two meta-analyses has led to productive conversations
about the contrasts being tested in task-based imaging studies as well as heterogeneity (in terms
of symptomology, demographic features, and medication status) within and between studies.
These sometimes-inconsistent activation-based results indicate that emotionally evocative
contexts may lead to differential modulation of the PFC/ACC-amygdala circuit in BPD, which is
thought to play a key role in the experience and regulation of negative emotion. This line of
thinking has begun to receive attention with a number of neuroimaging studies showing
heightened FC between the amygdala and ACC (Cullen et al., 2011; Kamphausen et al., 2013)
and PFC (Dudas et al., 2017) in task-based studies. On the other hand, others have argued for a
“disconnection” between the PFC and the amygdala with BPD patients showing overall
decreases in coupling between the amygdala and the OFC (New et al., 2007). Regardless, both
proponents of the disconnection and the hyperconnectivity perspective agree that not only is
functional activation important but that the relative synchrony of neural activity in these regions
may play an especially important role in describing individual differences in emotionality and
emotion regulation. These studies together support the idea that an imbalance of neural co-
fluctuation amongst frontolimbic structures may interact to produce the intense and unregulated
emotional experiences of individuals with BPD. However, interpretations of fronto-limbic
5
connectivity results remain opaque in human neuroimaging applications. For example, animal
studies of direct neural communication between the (particularly medial) PFC and the amygdala
have demonstrated that PFC stimulation inhibits amygdala activity (Quirk, Likhtik, Pelletier, &
Paré, 2003; Rosenkranz, Moore, & Grace, 2003), which further accords with accounts that
resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) between the amygdala and the mPFC and ACC
have been shown to strengthen with age (Cunningham, Bhattacharyya, & Benes, 2002; Gabard-
Durnam et al., 2014). However, often hyperconnectivity of the amygdala and PFC in fMRI
studies are interpreted as reflecting the influence of a hyperactive amygdala and the need to
recruit regulatory circuits in BPD. This inconsistency suggests that the exact nature of
connectivity between fronto-limbic structures in BPD has not been fully resolved in adults yet
remains a crucial task.
Evidence of the neural etiology of BPD: social-cognitive and default mode abnormalities
In a second series of studies, BPD has been associated with abnormal activation and
connectivity within and between regions involved in social cognitive and self-other
differentiation. These studies add to theoretical and empirical work suggesting that interpersonal
sensitivity (broadly construed) is a phenotype of BPD (Gunderson & Lyons-Ruth, 2008;
Hopwood, Wright, Ansell, & Pincus, 2013; Korn, Rosée, Heekeren, & Roepke, 2016; Roepke,
Vater, Preißler, Heekeren, & Dziobek, 2013). This set of studies tends to separate along studies
that focus on task-based activation of the so-called “social brain network,” and RSFC studies of
the default mode network (DMN; Raichle et al., 2001) in borderline samples.
The social brain network minimally consists of the mPFC, ACC, temporo-parietal junction
(TPJ), posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS), and anterior insula (aINS) (Adolphs, 2009;
6
Blakemore, 2008). Such regions encode social context and further aid in understanding the
mental states of oneself and others, a term in the clinical literature known as “mentalizing”
(Fonagy & Bateman, 2008). While humans are unrivaled in their ability to infer the mental states
of others, more basic animal work demonstrates that the crucial nodes of the social cognitive
system (primarily mPFC and TPJ) are generally conserved in the macaque (Noonan et al., 2017).
In line with clinical theory, a number of tasks designed to engage social cognitive processes
including making personality evaluations of self and other (Beeney, Hallquist, Ellison, & Levy,
2016), experiencing social rejection (Domsalla et al., 2014; Ruocco et al., 2010), and feeling
empathy for others (Dziobek et al., 2011) all tend to elicit hyperactivation in regions of the social
network in patients with BPD. From these studies among others, regions such as the mPFC, TPJ,
precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and aINS have been identified as key targets for
thinking about social cognitive impairments in BPD.
Importantly, there is a non-trivial amount of overlap between the social brain network and
what resting-state fMRI (RSMRI) studies have identified as the default mode network (DMN;
Raichle et al., 2001; Raichle & Snyder, 2007). The DMN includes the posterior cingulate cortex
(PCC)/ precuneus, mPFC, and bilateral angular gyrus (AG) and anterior temporal pole, which
together exhibit coordinated functional activation while subjects are at rest. In addition, the
DMN shows coordinated deactivation during cognitive task execution, which scales with task
performance, leading some to hypothesize that the DMN may compete with task positive
networks for resources at rest and during task (Kelly, Uddin, Biswal, Castellanos, & Milham,
2008; McKiernan, Kaufman, Kucera-Thompson, & Binder, 2003; Weissman, Roberts, Visscher,
& Woldorff, 2006). The DMN has been linked to self-referential thought, rumination, thinking
7
about the past, and planning for the future and may generally be thought of as an “internally-
directed” network (Zabelina & Andrews-Hanna, 2016).
To date, there have been relatively few RS studies in the BPD literature (Das, Calhoun, &
Malhi, 2014; Doll et al., 2013; Krause-Utz et al., 2014; Salvador et al., 2016; Sarkheil, Ibrahim,
Schneider, Mathiak, & Klasen, 2019; Wolf et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2016). However, the extant
literature shows initial signs of convergence around increased levels of intrinsic activity in the
DMN (Salvador et al., 2016; Wolf et al., 2011) and decreases in activity of frontal executive
control networks in BPD (Das et al., 2014; Doll et al., 2013; Wolf et al., 2011). One recent meta-
analysis of resting-state studies in BPD included four RS-fMRI studies and found increased
levels of activity in midline regions including the ACC and mPFC and reduced activity in the
right middle temporal cortex compared to controls (Visintin, De Panfilis, et al., 2016). However,
the studies reviewed in Visintin et al. (2016) still focused on functional activation (i.e. the
magnitude of BOLD fluctuations in a network at rest) and further utilized independent
component analysis (ICA) to detect network structure. While useful, this approach may miss
subtle differences in connectivity patterns across functionally separable brain regions, perhaps
within the same intrinsic network. Analytic approaches from graph theory provide finer levels of
detail concerning the unique roles of individual brain regions within the broader context of a
whole brain network (Bullmore & Sporns, 2009).
Development of intrinsic network structure in adolescence
While little is known about developmental differences in FC in adolescents with BPD, the
field of developmental cognitive neuroscience can provide insight into normative changes in
8
functional connectivity occurring during adolescence. The idea that networks are separable but
interacting is typically talked about in network neuroscience (Bassett & Sporns, 2017) as
network segregation and integration, respectively. One important finding in studies of brain
development during adolescence is that FC patterns transition from primarily local connectivity
(i.e. between regions that are close in Euclidean distance) to distributed connectivity (i.e.
strengthening of long-range connections that is perhaps explained by the myelination of axons
supporting communication between spatially distant regions; Fair et al., 2007). Thus, in
developmental neuroscience, a foundational line of research suggests that across adolescent
development, intrinsic networks undergo a process of segregation (separation of networks into
functionally distinct modules) and integration (cross-module communication).
More specifically, while the basic architecture of the brain is well-established by
adolescence (Hwang, Hallquist, & Luna, 2013), fine-grained tuning of long-range connections is
thought to support the strengthening of within-network connections (Fair et al., 2007). However,
network integration also increases over time in adolescence, contributing to the ability to recruit
a variety of cognitive processes flexibly, thereby supporting developmental improvements in
cognitive control (Luna, Marek, Larsen, Tervo-Clemmens, & Chahal, 2015). In particular, there
is evidence that both segregation and integration of the salience/cingulo-opercular network,
generally charged with maintaining attention to goals (i.e. task-set maintenance), is a key
neurodevelopmental change in adolescence that supports developmental improvements in task
performance (Fair et al., 2007; Hallquist, Geier, & Luna, 2018; Marek, Hwang, Foran, Hallquist,
& Luna, 2015).
The salience network is centrally comprised of portions of the ACC, frontal
9
operculum/anterior insula, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and TPJ, which shows a high degree of
overlap with social brain regions (Rosen et al., 2018). This is consistent with findings that the
adolescent brain is particularly sensitive to social information, including increased sensitivity to
social context (e.g. peer influence; Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg, 2011).
Likewise, many crucial regions involved in social cognitive processing undergo drastic changes
during adolescence, including the mPFC, anterior insula, TPJ, ACC, and pSTS (Blakemore,
2008; Blakemore & Mills, 2014), all of which have been associated with BPD in adults.
The current study
Despite evidence from developmental neuroscience that adolescence is a period of
segregation and integration of distant brain regions in addition to a period of social cognitive
development, little is known about how adolescents with emerging borderline symptoms may or
may not conform to this normative process. The central goal of the current study is to leverage
insights from developmental neuroscience to help contextualize the existing evidence for
neurobiological abnormalities in adults with BPD. With these goals in mind, an analytic
approach rooted in graph theory provides the opportunity to examine where in the brain and at
what level of analysis adolescents with BPD may exhibit neurodevelopmental differences. Graph
theory is a branch of discrete mathematics that considers pairwise relationships (links/edges)
between elements (nodes) of a complex network (i.e. a graph) to be the atomic unit of analysis.
Graph theoretical analyses often aim to identify nodes and edges that play a “central” role in the
topology of the graph based on a number of metrics, each designed to capture a different feature
of the graph’s structure. Graph theory is often employed in conjunction with RS studies, as these
10
studies do not have a “ground truth” signal or set of inputs by which to constrain analyses, yet
carry a number of advantages over task-based connectivity studies including ease of acquisition,
high signal-to-noise ratio, and good test-retest reliability (Cao et al., 2014; Fox & Greicius,
2010).
In the current study, our goal was to address the broader need to 1) test the possibility of
altered resting-state connectivity in a sample of adolescents with BPD symptoms rather than base
neurobiological thinking on BPD primarily on activation-based studies, 2) examine aberrant
patterns of age-related differences in intrinsic networks in adolescence and early adulthood, and
3) investigate how connectivity findings can be complimented by analyses metabolic demands
during rest via the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF; Zang et al., 2007). In order to
investigate how intrinsic networks may display differential developmental connectivity patterns
in individuals with BPD, we used graph theory analyses of resting-state fMRI data as one of the
first explorations into uncovering the developmental pathogenesis of borderline pathology. As
we detail below, two primary prongs of the study are to first perform confirmatory analyses on a
priori subsets of nodes previously identified in the BPD literature and then follow up these
analyses with a more exploratory whole-brain approach that places fronto-limbic and socio-
cognitive systems within a more distributed brain network.
11
Chapter 2: Methods
Participants
Our sample consisted of 46 adolescents and young adults with BPD symptoms recruited
from community and outpatient settings, as well as 44 sex- and age-matched healthy controls.
The average age was 20.53 years (range 13-30 years); 59 participants were female and 31 were
male. Six participants were excluded due to excessive head motion during the MRI scan (n BPD
= 4; criteria described below), resulting in a trimmed sample of 84 participants. We removed one
additional subject from the BPD group whose data did not pass serial residual correlation checks
after pre-whitening our data (described below). We further removed one participant from the
BPD group who passed our head motion criteria but whose functional connectivity matrix was
remarkably different from the group average. This check was based on the Mahalanobis distance
of every subject’s adjacency matrix compared to the group average (fig S1). A complete
demographic characterization of the final sample for the analysis can be found in Table 1.
Procedure
Participants were interviewed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV (SCID-IV;
First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 2002)) to screen for clinical disorders and the Structured
Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP; Pfohl, Blum, & Zimmermann, 1997) to screen for
personality pathology by a trained research assistant and supervised by the senior author.
Diagnostic interviews were completed in a separate visit prior to the MRI scan. Participants in
the BPD group met diagnostic criteria for three or more of the DSM-IV-TR BPD symptoms, an
empirically derived threshold for identifying clinically significant symptoms (Clifton & Pilkonis,
2007). Control participants had no history of psychiatric or substance abuse disorders, nor did
12
they have a history of head injury or neurological disease. Exclusionary criteria for the BPD
group included having a first-degree relative diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder or any psychotic
disorder.
Before the RS-fMRI session, participants completed a battery of self-report questionnaires.
The current report focuses on the Borderline Personality Questionnaire (BPQ, Poreh et al.,
2006). The BPQ contains a wide-range of borderline-related dimensions of dysfunction including
impulsivity, affective instability, fears of abandonment, intense and stormy relationships, self-
image difficulties, suicidality and self-harming behavior, emptiness, intense anger, and quasi-
psychotic states. The BPQ showed excellent internal consistency in our sample at baseline ( =
0.97, mean subscale = 0.86).
MR data acquisition and removal of high-motion subjects. Data were acquired using a
32-channel Siemens 3T Tim Trio at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magnetic
Resonance Research Center. We collected five minutes of resting-state fMRI data at the end of
an experimental protocol using a simultaneous multi-slice echo-planar sequence sensitive to
BOLD contrast (T2*, TR = 1.0s, TE = 30ms, FoV = 220 mm, flip angle = 55, voxel size =
2.3mm isotropic, 5x multiband acceleration) while subjects were asked to close their eyes and
relax, but not fall asleep. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire at the end of the
protocol to determine if they fell asleep during the resting-state scan or had problems with
alertness. No subjects were excluded for sleepiness.
For all participants, we calculated volume-to-volume framewise displacement (FD; Power,
Barnes, Snyder, Schlaggar, & Petersen, 2012). We excluded subjects with FD > 0.5mm in at
13
least 20% of the volumes, or any FD > 10mm. This led to the removal of six participants, four of
whom were in the BPD group.
RS-fMRI preprocessing procedures
RS-fMRI preprocessing was conducted within FSL (Smith et al., 2004), NiPy (Millman &
Brett, 2007), and AFNI (Cox, 1996). Structural scans were registered to the MNI152 template
(Fonov, Evans, McKinstry, Almli, & Collins, 2009) using affine and nonlinear transformations
conducted in FSL. Functional image preprocessing included simultaneous 4-D interpolation of
motion and slice-timing correction (Roche, 2011), brain extraction, alignment of subject’s
functional images to their anatomical scan using a boundary-based registration algorithm (Greve
& Fischl, 2009), a one-step nonlinear warp to MNI152 space that concatenated functional-to
structural, structural-to-MNI152 and fieldmap unwarping transformations.
We then used ICA-AROMA (Pruim, Mennes, van Rooij, et al., 2015) to remove motion-
related artifacts. Although our connectivity analyses were conducted on unsmoothed data (see
below), ICA-AROMA was conducted on data that was spatially smoothed with a 5mm FWHM
gaussian kernel (FSL susan), consistent with recommended guidelines. Specifically, Pruim and
colleagues (2015) note that spatial smoothing increases SNR in BOLD data, allowing for an
increased ability to detect structured artifacts that should be removed from the signal (such as
components related to subject movement). AROMA’s automated component selection approach
has recently been shown to be superior to other competing procedures in removing motion
artefacts while preserving the signal of interest, and it largely eliminates distance-dependent
motion-FC correlation effects (QC-FC correlation; Ciric et al., 2017; Pruim, Mennes, Buitelaar,
14
& Beckmann, 2015).
Based on the results of ICA-AROMA, we regressed motion-related components out of the
unsmoothed data using fsl regfilt. This approach performs the noise removal by running a
regression on the full ICA mixing matrix generated by AROMA (i.e. “nonaggressive” noise
removal) in addition to mean WM and CSF regressors, thus removing only the variance specific
to noise components that does not overlap with other components that likely reflect neural signal.
We decided to analyze unsmoothed data based on a recent report that spatial smoothing across a
range of FWHM values non-uniformly increases the correlation of ROI time series, which
spuriously increases estimates of network segregation at the cost of losing information about
functional network integration (Alakörkkö, Saarimäki, Glerean, Saramäki, & Korhonen, 2017).
Analytic approach
Nodal parcellation. After the data were preprocessed, we parceled voxels into ROIs (i.e.
nodes) based on a custom-built 422 cortico-striatal parcellation. Our parcellation was based on
the 400 node cortical parcellation derived recently by Schaefer et al. (2018). The study authors
used RS-fMRI data from 1489 participants and were able to demonstrate that the parcellation
(which they denote gwMRF, to denote the gradient-weighted Markov Random Field approach
used to derive the parcellation) provided a more homogenous partition of whole-brain neural
activity compared with four leading cortical parcellations and was shown to agree well with
cortical boundaries. The gwMRF parcellation also accords well with the previously defined
seven-network structure from Yeo et al. (2011), which promotes comparability of network-level
results between studies.
15
However, given that cortico-striato-thalamic loops are thought to play a central role in the
pathophysiology of neuropsychiatric disorders (Maia & Frank, 2011; Tekin & Cummings, 2002),
we sought to include subcortical regions in our final parcellation (as suggested in Hallquist &
Hillary, 2018). Thus we included a detailed parcellation of the human striatum (Choi, Yeo, &
Buckner, 2012), which aligns with the Yeo et al (2011) network structure, a thalamic parcellation
derived from diffusion weighted imaging (Behrens et al., 2003), and two bilateral subnuclei of
the amygdala (the basolateral amygdala [BLA], and centro-medial nucleus [CeM]) from the
Harvard-Oxford subcortical atlas in FSL.
After creating our combined parcellation we calculated subject-level masks that reflected
the proportion of voxels in each ROI that contained unreliable signal, as indicated by voxelwise
standard deviation equal to zero and/or all values equal to zero. Visual inspection of the subject-
level masks indicated that problematic voxels were located predominantly in inferior temporal
regions and to a lesser extent, orbitofrontal regions, reflecting signal loss due to susceptibility.
We then merged all binary masks into a group-level mask with voxel-wise values equal to the
proportion of subjects with reliable signal in the voxel. In order to ensure that ROI time series
reflected the same voxels across participants, we removed all voxels from the parcellation in
which less than 95% of subjects had reliable signal. This procedure removed 600 voxels —
approximately .7% of the total voxels — from our parcellation. We then calculated the
proportion of voxels removed from each node in the parcellation and removed nodes from the
final parcellation if 50% or more voxels in a node were dropped in order to ensure robust and
homogenous signal estimation. This led us to drop one ROI located near the left inferior
16
temporal pole for a final parcellation consisting of 421 nodes. A visual depiction of the finalized
parcellation is provided in figure 2.
Pre-whitening and adjacency matrix generation. After performing motion removal
procedures and constructing our combined parcellation, we pre-whitened our nodal time series
prior to calculating functional connectivity based on cross-correlation. This decision was based
on the concern that failing to remove autoregressive components of fMRI time-series violates a
key assumption of the general linear model (specifically, residuals must be i.i.d. and normally
distributed; Bright, Tench, & Murphy, 2017). Furthermore, estimates of cross-correlation can be
misestimated when time series have similar autoregressive properties that do not reflect true
interregional connectivity. To overcome this concern, auto-regressive models such as Auto-
Regressive Moving Average (ARMA(p,q); Box & Jenkins, 1990) models have received
increasing attention in the fMRI literature in recent years, where high amounts of serial
correlation are inherent in the data structure (Arbabshirani et al., 2014; Christova, Lewis, Jerde,
Lynch, & Georgopoulos, 2011; Woolrich, Ripley, Brady, & Smith, 2001). Prior to running
ARMA models, we computed aggregated nodal time series by taking the average of all time
series for voxels included in a given node, excluding those voxels that were missing (primarily
from truncation described above) or had no variance.
ARMA models represent the temporal dependence of observations in a time series,
allowing one to remove the autoregressive components of the signal to achieve a “white” error
time series. ARMA models were fit to each average nodal time series using the Arima function
included in the forecast package in R (Hyndman et al., 2019) such that
17
𝜂𝑡 = 𝑐 + 𝜀𝑡 + ∑ φ𝑖𝜂𝑡−𝑖
𝑝
𝑖=1
+ ∑ θ𝑖𝜀𝑡−𝑖
𝑞
𝑖=1
where φ𝑖 … φ𝑝 denote freely estimated AR coefficients that quantify the degree of
autocorrelation between the current realization (𝜂𝑡) and previous realizations, and θ𝑖 … θ𝑝
denote freely estimated MA coefficients that quantify the degree of dependence of the current
innovation (𝜀𝑡) on prior innovations. The residual error term, also called the innovation term in
an AR model, is assumed to be normally distributed (i.e. “white”) noise
𝜀𝑡~ 𝑖𝑖𝑑 𝑁(0, 𝜎2).
The unique coefficients of a given ARMA model for a node and subject act as a filter on
the time series that whitens the residuals. However, the important quantity of interest in a graph
theoretical analysis is the cross-correlation between every pair of nodal time series within a given
subject, which are then used as cells in the adjacency matrix. Thus, to compute functional
connectivity between regions, we stored the ARMA coefficients (sometimes referred to as a
transfer function) for one node and used these to filter both time series for a given subject. We
used the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to quantify the functional connectivity
between nodal time series that had been passed through the same ARMA coefficients:
𝑟𝜙(𝑦),𝜙(𝑥) = 1
𝑇 − 1 ∑
𝜙(𝑦𝑡) − 𝜙(𝑦)̅̅ ̅̅ ̅̅ ̅
𝑠𝜙(𝑦)
𝑇
𝑡=1
⋅𝜙(𝑥𝑡) − 𝜙(𝑥)̅̅ ̅̅ ̅̅ ̅
𝑠𝜙(𝑥)
where 𝜙(𝑦) and 𝜙(𝑥) denote the time series for two nodes that have both been filtered by the
fitted ARMA coefficients for y.
We fit a series of increasing complex ARMA models until the number of subject-wide
18
“non-white” residuals fell below 5% of voxels for all subjects (i.e., the false positive rate on the
test). Time series were deemed “non-white” on the basis of the Breusch-Godfrey test, which
tested null hypotheses of serial correlation our nodal time series, which was computed up to six
lags prior to the current realization (i.e., six seconds in the past). Through this procedure we
retained our results from an ARMA(4,2) model as the edges of subject-level graphs for further
analysis.
Graph construction and module assignment. After estimating nodal functional
connectivity matrices for each subject, we converted these adjacency matrices to graphs using
the igraph and brainGraph R packages (Csárdi & Nepusz, 2006; Watson, 2017) in order to
estimate all network metrics (e.g., strength centrality). After the construction of undirected
weighted graphs, it is common to threshold graphs by setting some edges to zero that reflect
unreliable or uncommon connections in the sample. Based on recent reports that proportional
thresholding (PT) can lead to spurious results in group comparison studies (Hallquist & Hillary,
2018; van den Heuvel et al., 2017), we instead used a moderate consensus threshold to eliminate
spurious edges in our graphs (de Reus & van den Heuvel, 2013). Specifically, we removed edges
from all subjects that did not have a weight of r = .1 or higher in 25% or more of subjects. This
decision was guided by three factors. First, cross-correlations among pre-whitened time series
are lower than correlations without pre-whitening. Second, many nodes in the cortico-limbic
network, which is important in BPD, had relatively weak functional connectivity values
compared to other regions (fig S1); thus, we wanted to define a low threshold that would retain
many cortico-limbic edges. Third, the central goal of thresholding was to remove only the highly
unreliable edges prior to conducting weighted graph analyses. Prior to thresholding, we removed
19
all negative edges from our adjacency matrices because the role of anti-correlated nodal time-
series in rsfMRI data is not well understood and many graph metrics are not well-suited to
handle negative edges (Hallquist & Hillary, 2018; Rubinov & Sporns, 2011). Moreover, negative
edges were uncommon (across subjects, M = 611.34, SD = 164.40), and the negative values were
substantially weaker than the strongly positive FC distribution.
In order to compare levels of connectivity within and between intrinsic networks of
interest, we assigned nodes to one of the seven networks from Yeo et al. (2011) and reported in
(Schaefer et al., 2018). We note here that we use the term network to the describe those sets of
nodes that share a high degree of connectivity amongst themselves (rather than the “whole-brain
network” which comprises all brain regions), which are synonymous with modules in graph
theory. The seven networks correspond to default mode (DMN), fronto-parietal (FPN),
salience/ventral attention (Sal), dorsal attention (DAN), sommato-motor (SomMot), visual (Vis),
and cortico-limbic networks (Limbic). Despite the fact that others (e.g. Betzel, Gu, Medaglia,
Pasqualetti, & Bassett, 2016) have grouped subcortical nodes in separate modules, reflecting
more of a “bottom-up” vs “top-down” focus, we sought to capture the looping nature of cortical-
striato-thalamic connections as being centrally important in our conceptualization of intrinsic
networks (Alexander & Crutcher, 1990). With this in mind, striatal nodes were assigned to their
corresponding cortical networks according to (Choi et al., 2012). The eight subdivisions of the
thalamus were assigned to bilateral fronto-parietal, somato-motor, dorsal attention, and default
networks based on prominent white matter projections reported in Behrens et al., (2003). All
amygdala ROIs (4 in total) were assigned to the cortico-limbic network. In order to check if
within-network FC was greater between-network FC, we visually inspected within and between
20
network edge distributions and confirmed that this was the case (fig S2), lending support to the
validity of our network partition.
Graph metrics. At the global level, we inspected the overall FC and strength centrality
distributions as global indicators of the overall FC in our BPD and control participants. We
further examined several global graph metrics in order to examine the possibility of global
differences between groups that would qualify more focused nodal analyses. In particular, we
calculated weighted modularity, characteristic path length, transitivity, global efficiency, and the
weighted diameter of individual graphs (Rubinov & Sporns, 2011).
At the nodal level, we calculated strength centrality, which is the sum of all edges
incident to a node of interest:
𝑘𝑖𝑤 = ∑ 𝑤𝑖,𝑗
𝑗 ∈ 𝐺
such that 𝑘𝑖𝑤 is the weighted degree (strength) centrality for node i, and 𝑤𝑖,𝑗 is the weight of the
connection between node i and each node j for all nodes in the graph (G). In order to test
network-to-network connectivity, our analyses focused on connections within and between the
seven networks of interest. For each node, we partitioned strength centrality into seven network-
specific estimates (one per network, which we refer to as net-strengths):
𝑘𝑖,𝑁𝑤 = ∑ 𝑤𝑖,𝑗
𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
21
Here, N corresponds to the set of all nodes in one of seven networks. Since the seven networks
each contain a different number of nodes, we normalized the net-strength metrics 𝑘𝑖,𝑁𝑤 so as not
to award larger networks with higher estimates:
𝑧𝑖,𝑁𝑤 =
𝑘𝑖,𝑁𝑤 − 𝑘 𝑁
𝑤̅̅ ̅̅ ̅
𝜎𝑘 𝑁𝑤
.
Thus, if node 𝑖 is in module N, then 𝑧𝑖,𝑁𝑤 corresponds to node 𝑖’s within-module degree z-score
(Guimerà & Amaral, 2005). Otherwise, for 𝑖 ∉ 𝑁, 𝑧𝑖,𝑁𝑤 corresponds to the normalized inter-
module connectivity between node i and all nodes in 𝑁. We further calculated the betweenness
centrality of every node, corresponding to the number of shortest paths that run through a node.
In the weighted variant, we summed edge weights to compute shortest paths rather than counting
edges:
𝑏𝑖 = 1
(𝑛 − 1)(𝑛 − 2)∑
𝜌ℎ𝑗(𝑖)
𝜌ℎ𝑗ℎ,𝑗 ∈ 𝐺ℎ≠𝑗,ℎ≠𝑖,𝑗≠𝑖
where 𝜌ℎ𝑗(𝑖) are the number of shortest paths between nodes h and j that run through node i and
𝜌ℎ𝑗 is the number of shortest paths between h and j. Given that betweenness centrality follows a
power-law distribution, we log-transformed estimates prior to analysis. In addition, for
betweenness, we Winsorized outliers by replacing observations that were outside of the 2.5%
and 97.5% quantiles of the log-betweenness distribution with the values associated with the 2.5%
and 97.5% quantiles, respectively. No Winsorizing procedures were required for any of the net-
strength scores.
22
Resting-state activity: amplitude of low frequency fluctuations (ALFF). While the
primary goals of our study were to examine group and age-related differences in RSFC, we were
interested in the degree of convergence and/or divergence between connectivity-based measures
and the level of low frequency fluctuations between groups. This is quantified in RS data as the
amplitude of low frequency fluctuations (ALFF; Zang et al., 2007) and is generally considered to
be akin to be the resting-state analog of “activation” task fMRI data and has been shown to
correspond to metabolic demands in RS-fMRI(Tomasi, Wang, & Volkow, 2013). ALFF is
calculated by computing the power spectrum of low frequencies (typically, .01 – .1 Hz; Biswal,
Yetkin, Haughton, & Hyde, 1995)
𝐴𝐿𝐹𝐹 = 1
𝐿∑ 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
0.1𝐻𝑧
0.01𝐻𝑧
where the power of a given frequency is obtained via a Fast Fourier Transformation and L
denotes the number of Fourier coefficients, thus averaging the summed amplitudes across the
selected frequency range (Zang et al., 2007). However, ALFF suffers from being susceptible to
physiological noise, which led to the subsequent development and validation of a normalized
variant known as fractional ALFF (fALFF)
𝑓𝐴𝐿𝐹𝐹 =
1𝐿𝑙𝑜𝑤
∑ 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟0.1𝐻𝑧0.01𝐻𝑧
1𝐿𝑎𝑙𝑙
∑ 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟.25𝐻𝑧0 𝐻𝑧
⁄
such that the denominator includes RS fluctuations across the entire frequency range. Both ALFF
and fALFF are thought to reflect different aspects of neural processing and have been
demonstrated to be reliable over time (Zuo et al., 2010). ALFF and fALFF were calculated on
23
the preprocessed timeseries before pre-whitening (as this procedure necessarily affects the
spectral properties of a time series) was applied. These metrics were computed using the alffmap
function in the ANTSR package in R (Avants, 2018).
Confirmatory analyses amongst a priori nodes. In order to test the robustness of the
effects described in the adult literature in our adolescent sample, we ran two focused analyses on
the “usual suspects” from BPD research in adults. An edge-by-edge analysis of our adjacency
matrices would require 88,410 tests (unique elements of the lower triangle of our adjacency
matrices), making for a massive multiple comparisons problem. Thus, we selected a subset of
nodes that are of particular interest to fronto-limbic and social/DMN accounts of BPD for
focused tests on connection strengths between regions that have been previously identified1. In
the first a priori analysis, we selected 19 front-limbic nodes of interest from the 421-node
parcellation and examined group and group x age differences in edge values that connected these
nodes. More specifically, the fronto-limbic nodes were bilateral mPFC, ACC, orbitofrontal
cortex (OFC), and amygdala (bilateral BLA and CeM), as well as the bilateral ventral striatum
(VS), as this region plays a central role in reward processing and motivation and has been
implicated in BPD (Sarkheil et al., 2019; Silbersweig et al., 2007). In a second confirmatory
analysis we selected 25 nodes representing “social brain” and DMN hubs. These were chosen
based on a review of the literature, especially the Visintin et. al. (2016) meta-analysis. We
included the same mPFC and ACC nodes in the fronto-limbic and social/DMN analyses, as these
1 Since the usual suspects analysis was designed to be a targeted analysis and our focus in on
connectivity here, we only tested ALFF and fALFF in whole-brain exploratory analyses
(described below)
24
regions are crucially involved in both emotion regulation and social cognition. In addition, in the
social/DMN usual suspects analysis we included the TPJ, Precuneus, aINS and pSTS, as well as
mPFC and ACC. Detailed information on the nodes selected can be found in Table S1.
Before conducting formal analyses, we aimed to determine if age-related changes in an
edge’s FC value conformed better to linear, inverse linear (asymptotic), or quadratic (u-shaped)
functions of age. We first fit a series of regression models predicting edge FC as a function of
subjects’ mean FC values and interacting group and age variables. In order to test for different
shapes of age-related effects we fit three regression models for each edge (i.e. every combination
of nodes in the selected set of usual suspects), each corresponding to linear, inverse linear, and
quadratic age effects (quadratic models also included a linear component). We ran this procedure
for every edge and estimated linear, inverse linear, and quadratic age effects. We assumed a
linear age effect to be the default but retained quadratic or inverse age effects for further analyses
if a Vuong likelihood ratio test rejected the null hypothesis (p < .05) that the two models are
equally close to the data generating process (Vuong, 1989).
Logistic ridge regression analyses. The primary aim of our a priori analyses was to
examine which edges best described age and BPD-related differences in functional network
organization. Given the large number of nodes, however, we sought to avoid running multiple
separate models given that this mass univariate approach would have a high risk of false positive
findings. Moreover, univariate analyses of edges would not provide insight into which subset of
edges jointly discriminate network differences as a function of BPD and age. With this in mind,
we elected to run two logistic ridge regression analyses — one for each set of usual suspects —
in which we predicted group status (BPD vs. HC) as a function of edge FC values for all edges in
25
the joint set for the analysis in question, as well as age-by-FC interactions from the age models
selected above. Thus, the results we interpret are based on parameter estimates that jointly best
discriminated between adolescents in the BPD and HC groups. By including edge x age
interactions, the models were also able to identify nodes whose pattern of age-related change
differed by group. For example, a model predicting group status from edges in the fronto-limbic
comparison was specified as
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡(𝐵𝑃𝐷) = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝐴𝑔𝑒 + +𝛽2𝐴𝑔𝑒2 + 𝛽3𝐹𝐶𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 + 𝛽4𝐹𝐶173−401 + 𝛽5𝐹𝐶173−401 × 𝐴𝑔𝑒
+ ⋯ + 𝛽𝑝−2𝐹𝐶404−420 + 𝛽𝑝−1𝐹𝐶404−420 × 𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 𝛽𝑝𝐹𝐶404−420 × 𝐴𝑔𝑒2 + 𝑒
where p is equal to the number of parameters in the model and 𝐹𝐶404−420 denotes the FC value
between node 404 (R CeM) and node 420 (R VS). In this example, the Age2 term for 𝐹𝐶404−420
denotes that a quadratic age model fit better than linear or inverse variants according to the
Vuong test, whereas for 𝐹𝐶173−401 the linear model fit the best. Nodes that were fit best by a
quadratic model included both linear and quadratic age terms (as in the example above) in order
to partition variance to the linear and quadratic components appropriately.
We elected to use a regularized regression approach to overcome p ≫ n problems in
which the number of estimated parameters is greater than the number of observations (Hastie,
Tibshirani, & Friedman, 2016). Ridge regression shrinks model coefficients towards zero by
penalizing the summed parameter estimates. This is achieved by augmenting the standard OLS
loss function with an L2 penalty such that
𝐿𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒(�̂�) = ∑(𝑦𝑖 − 𝑥𝑖′�̂�)2
𝑛
𝑖=1
+ ∑ �̂�𝑗2
𝑚
𝑗=1
26
where is a penalty parameter corresponding to the level of shrinkage on the standard OLS
regression parameter estimate. The penalty parameter for our ridge regression was chosen using
an automated selection algorithm implemented in the R ridge package. The auto-selected
parameters for each analysis (including subsequent whole-brain connectivity and ALFF/fALFF
analyses) are displayed in Table S2. We elected to retain parameters as significant if their ridge
p-value was < .005. We note that in such an analysis, there is no inherent need to correct for
multiple comparisons since all edges are tested simultaneously. However, given the large number
of potential contributing parameters in the fitted models we chose to retain a subset of results that
were the most potent in distinguishing our groups and thus elected p < .005 as a more stringent
test of significance.
Post-hoc analysis: effective connectivity. After examining the results of the usual
suspects analyses, we sought to identify if any of the functional connectivity results in our edge-
level analyses could be explained by the directed influence of one node on another. In order to
assess group-level differences in effective connectivity we retained the nodes from the usual
suspects analysis that showed evidence of significant group differences in logistic ridge
regression analyses. We then estimated directed connectivity between these nodes using the
confirmatory subgrouping Group Iterative Multiple Model Estimation algorithm (Henry et al.,
2019). CS-GIMME is a recently validated extension of the GIMME search algorithm (Gates &
Molenaar, 2012), which has been demonstrated to reliably detect the presence and direction of
edges in fMRI data both at the individual and the group level. GIMME estimates both lagged and
contemporaneous relationships between nodal time series (and within time series, corresponding
to AR processes) and benefits from relaxing the assumption that all individuals must be fit to the
27
same model, yet utilizes regularities in individual subjects’ path estimates to derive group-level
edges that are estimated for every subject in the sample. Likewise, Henry et al., (2019) recently
extended GIMME to also search for edges that uniquely exist in one a priori subgroup (i.e. a
clinical disorder) but not for another, thus allowing for the investigation of subgroup differences
between edges that are estimated for all subjects (group-level edges) in the sample but also for
the existence of edges that are unique to an a priori subgroup. We fit two CS-GIMME models
(one for fronto-limbic, one for S/DMN nodes) to the preprocessed (before pre-whitening) time
series from each of the identified nodes using the gimme R packages (Gates & Molenaar, 2012).
Exploratory whole-brain analysis. A second goal of our analysis was to examine
fronto-limbic and social/DMN differences in BPD within the context of a whole-brain graph,
rather than in selected regions. We first tested differences in global graph properties by
regressing edge/FC values on age, group status, and an age x group interaction. In preliminary
analyses, we found that the borderline group had significantly lower overall FC, which prompted
us to include each subjects’ mean FC value as a covariate in subsequent analyses (fig 1).
Including all subjects’ mean FD as a covariate in the analysis did not significantly alter these
results or results from other analyses. To investigate group differences in the global graph
metrics calculated above we ran five linear regressions predicting global graph metrics (one for
each metric) by group status and age as well as the interaction of age and group status to test null
hypotheses of no difference in global graph metrics of interest. Given the overall lower mean FC
in the BPD group, mean FC was included as a covariate of no interest in all analyses, including
the usual suspects analyses described above.
28
We then tested the contribution of nodal centrality metrics (strength, net-strengths,
betweenness) and RS “activation” (ALFF, fALFF) to group differences using the same logistic
ridge regression approach described above. As in the usual suspects analysis, using a Vuong test
we estimated the best-fitting function of age for each node, which was then entered into the
whole-brain nodal regression. In this situation, however, we included all 421 nodes and their age
interactions as parameters in 11 separate logistic ridge regression models (nine centrality metrics
and two ALFF measures) with group status as the dependent variable. We again interpreted
results if their ridge p-value was < .005.
Post-hoc analyses: symptom measures. We were interested further in connectivity
patterns as they relate to dimensional variation in BPQ subscales described above. Since our
initial analyses focused on group discriminability based off of neural measures, we decided to
focus on the mediational effects of BPQ subscale measures as a test of group differences being
explained by variation in particular dimensions of borderline pathology. While the mediations
we tested are likely best fit within a structural equation modelling (SEM) framework, our sample
size was not large enough to fit an SEM mediation model. Thus, we fit a single factor
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to the BPQ subscales and retained the factor scores for
further analysis. This approach is more advisable than summing or averaging self-report scales,
as fitting a CFA will remove measurement error and thus provide a single estimate for a given
subject’s standing on a latent factor explaining covariation in item responding. We performed a
similar analysis on the results from our graph analysis, given that some nodes showed significant
differences across a number of mod-strength metrics. When this was the case all results were in
the same direction, thus lending support to the idea of a shared signal for some nodes (i.e. we did
29
not observe any group differences suggesting that a node had higher connectivity to one module
and lower connectivity to a different module in controls or BPD participants). If nodes had three
or more significant results across our nodal centrality analyses we attempted to fit a single-factor
CFA to the identified centrality metrics as indicators of a latent variable corresponding to the
connectivity of a given node. This procedure was designed to reduce the number of mediation
tests. Models were specified such that the mediating influence of one of the self-report measures
documented above (mediating variable) explains the association between group status
(independent variable) and a neural metric of interest (dependent variables taken from Tables 4
and 5 could be nodal centrality, or ALFF, or a factor score if multiple centrality metrics were
significant in the ridge analyses). Mediation analyses were conducted in the mediation package
in R (Tingley, Yamamoto, Hirose, Keele, & Imai, 2019) .
Post-hoc analyses: visual depiction of edges of interest. We were further interested in
learning about the edges that contributed to our nodal results. In particular, given that our mod-
strength metrics reflect the sum of edge weights between a given node and a network, post hoc
analyses offer the potential to uncover the edges that differ most as a function of group. We
investigated “affected” nodes (which were identified via the p-values from ridge regression) by
running post-hoc t-tests of group differences for each edge of an affected nodes. When
discussing nodal results, post hoc edge analyses served as an informal guide for identifying the
most salient bivariate group differences at the edge level that may underlie the nodal results led
to a consistent pattern of connectivity (for example to nearby nodes within the same network).
By contrast, betweenness centrality is based on path length. Thus, specific connections to and
30
from nodes are less important in yielding significant results, so only nodes that differed in
strength were further interrogated.
Results
Global analyses
At the global level, the BPD and HC groups differed in overall FC. Student’s t-tests
between the control and borderline group indicated that the control group has greater edge
weights on average (t = 5.46, p < .0001) and greater strength centrality (t = 15.18, p < .0001)
(fig1a). Further our groups differed in age-related changes in FC, which were fit best by a
quadratic age model. Results from a linear regression revealed a significant quadratic age x
group interaction (t = -17.96, p < .0001) such that the control group showed evidence of
quadratic decreases in FC over the adolescent-early adult window we sampled where the BPD
group showed evidence of lower overall FC during adolescence with an attenuated slope
compared to controls (fig1b). We ran this analysis again, also including the mean FD for each
subject as a covariate of no interest and saw no differences in the results, ruling out the
possibility that these results were due to excessive head motion in the BPD group. Linear
models predicting global graph metrics of interest showed no significant group or group x age
effects with mean FC included as a covariate in each model (Table 2).
a priori analysis: fronto-limbic nodes
In our fronto-limbic usual suspects analysis, we first identified and dropped any edges
that were eliminated as a result of consensus thresholding. Of the 171 identified edges we
proposed to test, 19 were zeroed-out on this basis. In the social/DMN usual suspects analysis, 14
31
edges were dropped on this basis, leading to an overall 311 edges tested in the social/DMN
analysis and 152 edges in the fronto-limbic analysis. Results are displayed in Table 2 and
visualized in Figure 3.
While results from the fronto-limbic analyses point to a robust pattern of age-varying
differences in connectivity in fronto-limbic edges, we found evidence of decreased FC in the left
CeM of the amygdala. In particular, the BPD group had lower connectivity between the left CeM
and two contiguous nodes in the right dmPFC across development.
For fronto-limbic edges we found a series of group x age interactions between the
bilateral VS and regions of the mPFC and ACC. In particular, in the right VS young adolescents
in the BPD group had higher FC compared to HC subjects with the left subgenual ACC
(sgACC), ventromedial PFC (vmPFC), and rostromedial PFC (rmPFC). Across the adolescent
period FC decreased in these connections in the BPD group, whereas HC subjects showed age-
related increases in the same connections (fig 3b, 3d). Further visual inspection of these nodes
revealed that three were spatially contiguous roughly corresponding to BAs 25, 12, and 10. In the
left VS, we found quadratic group x age interactions in edges to the left dACC and right rACC.
In these two edges, HC subjects showed a strong u-shaped trajectory, with edge values being
highest in early adolescence and in late 20’s. In the BPD group, however, the edge connecting
the VS and dACC shows much less age-related change and specifically does not rise in the mid
20’s as it does in HC subjects (fig 3c, 3e). Results from the CS-GIMME analyses revealed an
edge estimated at the subgroup level in all controls from the left dACC (node 177) to the left VS
(node 415), yet this was only estimated for one individual in the BPD group. Further
32
investigation revealed that in HC subjects path estimates for this directed edge from the dACC to
the VS showed age-related increases (fig 4).
a priori analysis: social/DMN nodes
In contrast to the fronto-limbic analysis, in the social/DMN a priori analysis we found
pattern of hypoconnectivity in the BPD group compared to the control group regardless of age.
In this analysis, three main findings emerged. First, the most highly affected node was a region
in the right TPJ located near the posterior angular gyrus (AG). This TPJ region exhibited
significantly lower FC to the left dmPFC, posterior middle temporal sulcus (pMTS), rACC, and
TPJ/AG which was not moderated by age. Second, we found lower values for an edge
connecting the left rACC and left precuneus in the BPD group. Third, in the BPD group we
found higher FC values for an edge connecting the right dorsal and ventral anterior insula.
Whole-brain nodal centrality analyses
We retained all nodal results with a p value < 0.005 for interpretation, which led to the
identification of 38 affected nodes (Table 4), which were distributed across several networks (9
DMN and Vis, 5 FPN and SomMot, 4 Sal and Limbic, and 2 DAN, table S3). There was also a
mix of hyper- (31) and hypoconnectivity (24) in the borderline group compared to controls
(detailed in Table S2). A further breakdown of the significant effects by network, metric and
whether or not the result indicated higher or lower connectivity for the borderline group can be
found in Table S3. These analyses uncovered a number of effects that distinguished participants
with BPD from the HC group regardless of age in addition to a number of findings that showed
33
differences in age-related effects that distinguished the groups. Results from whole-brain
analyses are depicted in Figures 8 and 9.
Group differences. In the Salience network we identified a pattern of hyper-connectivity
in the bilateral dorsal mid/anterior insula (daINS) such that the left daINS node identified (node
102) showed significantly higher overall strength of connections with the DMN. The right daINS
(node 307) showed a robust pattern of hyperconnectivity in borderline adolescents with all
intrinsic networks besides the limbic regardless of age. Further, post-hoc edge analyses revealed
that the edges of this daINS node that were the most hyperconnected in the BPD group projected
to an anatomically contiguous cluster of nodes in the bilateral parietal lobe that were grouped in
the DAN (fig 5b). Results from ALFF analyses indicated that this same node in the daINS had
higher ALFF in the BPD group regardless of age. We further found that the association between
group status and the strength of this node (which we estimated by extracting factor scores from a
single factor CFA, see Method) was fully mediated by heightened levels of affective instability
(fig 5c). We also found a robust pattern of general hypoconnectivity in strength centrality in
addition to a number of mod-strengths in the right TPJ in the BPD group across the
developmental window (fig 6).
In the DAN one node in the right middle occipital gyrus had higher betweenness
centrality across development in the BPD group. However, results from whole-brain ALFF
analyses indicated a robust pattern of lower ALFF across the bilateral inferior and superior
parietal lobules. This finding was paralleled by multiple nodes in the FPN that showed
significantly lower ALFF in the BPD group.
34
Within the DMN we found mixed evidence for hyper vs hypo connectivity in nodes
across the network. In one node in the left superior frontal gyrus we found hyperconnectivity to
salience and FPN networks in the BPD group across age. Additionally, two spatially contiguous
nodes in the left AG (164, 161) had higher betweenness centrality in the BPD group. Further in
the DMN the only node that aided the ridge regression in distinguishing the BPD and HC group
in the whole-brain ALFF analysis was the left sgACC (169) which was hyperactive in the BPD
group regardless of age. Contrary to our expectations, a number of nodes in the DMN were also
hypoconnected. In fact, we found that hypoconnectivity between the left rACC and the
somatomotor network was fully mediated by dimensional scores on the BPQ affective instability
subscale. We further found that one node in the left precuneus (200) was hypoconnected to the
limbic network in the BPD group.
Finally, similarly to the DMN, we found a mixed pattern of hyper and hypo connectivity
in the visual network. However, it is notable that we found evidence of one node in the left
middle occipital gyrus that was robustly hyperconnected to multiple network in the BPD group.
Age-related effects. In our whole-brain ridge regression analyses, we identified two
primary leads in terms of age-related effects that distinguished the BPD group from the HC
group. First, we found a set of age-related effects that corresponded to connectivity between the
DAN and salience network. In particular, we found that a node in the right putamen (419),
showed evidence of a group x age interaction, such that connectivity to the DAN increased in the
BPD group, where in the HC group connectivity to the DAN decreased. Further we found a
quadratic group x age interaction in the right putamen, such that during adolescence both groups
showed decreases in betweenness centrality when around age 23, the BPD group showed
35
evidence of an accelerated rate of age-related increases in betweenness compared to controls.
Interestingly, in a DAN node located in the left superior parietal lobule (SPL, 82), we found a
very similar quadratic age-related effect where connectivity to the salience network in this node
was highest in early adolescence and towards the end of early adulthood in the BPD group,
where the control group showed evidence of a gradual increase in connectivity between the SPL
and the salience network. Related to our finding that ALFF in the DAN was lower in the BPD
group regardless of age, we further found evidence that ALFF in a node located in the right
precuneus (288) decreased in ALFF in the BPD group, where the HC group showed evidence of
age-related increases in ALFF. We further found a quadratic age x group interaction in the right
TPJ (295, fig 6) and two spatially contiguous nodes in the pMTS and supramarginal gyrus
(SMG) showing nearly identical quadratic age x group interactions. In these interactions young
adolescents with BPD were significantly lower in ALFF compared to their control counterparts
and increased in ALFF until approximately age 20, after which ALFF values decreased. In the
HC group we observed the opposite pattern such that in early adolescents showed decreases in
ALFF until approximately age 20, at which point ALFF increased.
Second, we found a robust pattern of decreases in net-strength scores to the DMN, FPN,
and Limbic networks in three limbic nodes. In particular in the left temporal pole (125) the HC
group showed evidence of developmental increases in within-network strength, whereas the BPD
group, showed evidence of a slight age-related decrease. We found a similar age x group
interaction such that connectivity between the DMN and the right VS (415, fig 7b) was higher in
young adolescents with BPD symptoms compared with the HC group, yet in older BPD
participants, VS-DMN connectivity was lower than in older HC participants. Mediation analyses
36
indicated that the association of BPD and connectivity between the right VS and the DMN was
fully mediated by the negative self-image BPQ scale (fig 7c). We also found a quadratic age x
group interaction in connectivity between the left VS (415) and the FPN, such that controls
showed a u-shaped pattern of connectivity, which started higher in early adolescence slightly
decreased until approximately age 20, and then showed an accelerated increase whereas BPD
participants showed a decline in VS-FPN connectivity in early adulthood.
Discussion
While the pervasive symptoms of BPD are generally thought to become first apparent
during early adolescence (Zanarini et al., 2006), this is the first study to our knowledge to
directly investigate functional whole-brain connectivity in a sample of borderline adolescents.
With this in mind, we used RSFC MRI coupled with graph theoretic analyses in order to
examine group-level differences in FC between a group of adolescents and young adults
diagnosed with clinically heightened borderline symptoms with an age and sex matched cohort
of healthy control subjects. Another goal of the current study was to examine age-related
differences in connectivity between our BPD and HC group. A final goal of the current study
was to look at how the connectivity findings from our first set of analyses might be augmented
by an analysis of ALFF, as only one study to our knowledge has applied ALFF analysis in
individuals with BPD (Salvador et al., 2016). We sought to employ an approach that first
examines connectivity differences amongst previously identified circuits and then tested the
importance of connectivity in these regions within the context of a whole brain network. Our
results indicate the importance of the salience network in the pathogenesis of BPD and further
point to age-related differences in connectivity between the salience network and the DAN
37
compared to controls. A second dominant signal in our results is that age-related differences in
connectivity in the VS, rather than the amygdala were better able to discriminate participants in
the BPD group from their HC counterparts.
The role of the salience network in adolescent BPD
The most robust finding in our data was that a region in the right dorsal anterior insula
showed evidence of heightened strength centrality amongst nearly every resting state network
included in our parcellation in addition to significantly higher ALFF across development. In the
control group this node showed age-related increases in centrality across the development, which
is consistent with prior reports that control networks and notably salience network show an age-
related pattern of integration with other RSNs (fig 5d, Betzel et al., 2014; Fair et al., 2007; Marek
et al., 2015; Power, Fair, Schlaggar, & Petersen, 2010). However, in our data the right daINS
was higher in centrality in young adolescents with BPD and this heightened pattern of
connectivity remained high across development. Further, heightened levels of affective
instability fully mediated the relationship between inclusion in the BPD group and connectivity
in this region (as measured by the factor scores extracted from a simple CFA). Affective
instability is considered by many to constitute one core dimension of borderline pathology
(Crowell et al., 2009) and is typified by rapid vacillations between mood states, typically in
response to perceived interpersonal slights.
This finding may speak to the insula’s role as a central node in assigning salience to
relevant stimuli and mediating attentional shifts in accordance to task-related goals (Menon &
Uddin, 2010; Uddin, Nomi, Hébert-Seropian, Ghaziri, & Boucher, 2017). In particular, the right
38
insula, is involved in cognitive-emotional processing, with some parcellations of the insula
categorizing the anterior insula into dorsal and ventral components corresponding to more
cognitive and emotional processing respectively, with the posterior insula playing a key role in
interoceptive awareness (Chang, Yarkoni, Khaw, & Sanfey, 2013). Further, the insula has been
hypothesized to mediate dynamic switches from more internally-directed processing (such as
processing conducted by the DMN) and processing that is mediated by external or cognitively
demanding tasks (such as those conducted by the FPN and DAN, Menon & Uddin, 2010). Our
results accord well with extant evidence showing that the insula is a key connector hub in the
brain that is responsible for a high degree of output to the rest of the brain and shows evidence of
early activation post-stimulus in order to signal the need for an attentional shift (Sridharan,
Levitin, & Menon, 2008). Our results in this region of the dorsal anterior insula speculatively
imply that young adolescents with BPD may experience hyper-frequent switching between tasks
or “brain states”, which may be associated with the intense and frequent emotional changes
experienced by individuals with BPD. In fact, it has been hypothesized that the insula plays a key
role in producing interoceptive predictions on the body’s internal state, consistent with
computational theories of predictive coding that occur in the VS for reward value (Barrett &
Simmons, 2015). In conjunction with theories that suggest that psychosomatic markers
underlying emotional processing may have a bioregulatory basis (Bechara & Damasio, 2005), it
may be the case that adolescents with BPD receive a high throughput of such somatic markers
that lead to a constant need to shift goals. Another possibility is that such somatic markers are
similar in intensity and frequency in adolescents with BPD, yet these adolescents may be more
39
sensitive to their internal state with a lower threshold required to signal the need to transition
goals, although future studies are strongly recommended to directly test these hypotheses.
Further, our analyses indicate that perhaps increased integration between the DAN and
the right daINS plays an important role in the development of BPD. In particular, edge analyses
implicate the right daINS and its connectivity to multiple nodes in the left Parietal lobe (see fig
4) as being key edges that differentiate our groups. Past resting-state investigations of integration
and segregation of the dorsal and ventral attention networks indicates that a key developmental
task of adolescence is the segregation of these two networks (Fair et al., 2007), which individuals
with BPD seem to show less evidence of. Extant research suggests that these two networks
dynamically interact to control both tonic and transient aspects of attention, with the salience
network being generally implicated in maintaining tonic levels of attention and the dorsal
attention network mediating transient shifts in attention which bias the visual network towards
task-relevant stimuli (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Vossel, Geng, & Fink, 2014). The hypothesis
that borderline adolescents show a lack of segregation in these networks is further corroborated
by our finding that a node in the right putamen, which was identified in (Choi et al., 2012) as
having high FC with the salience network showed developmental increases in early adulthood in
betweenness centrality in the BPD group in addition to increased connectivity with DAN. This is
doubly implicates an overall age-related increase in the number of shortest paths that go through
this node in the BPD group (indicative of increasing reliance on salience-related processing over
development in borderline adolescents) and an increasing enmeshment of salience and DAN
BOLD fluctuations over development respectively. Further, animal models of decision making
indicate that the putamen/dorsolateral striatum is thought to be involved in the development of
40
rigid and habitual responding, with portions of the dorsomedial striatum being involved in
flexible, goal-based decision making (Balleine, Delgado, & Hikosaka, 2007). This very
speculatively suggests that the development of BPD in adolescents may involve a transition from
goal-directed to habitual/rigid decision making.
While nodal centrality results suggested heightened connectivity amongst nodes in DAN,
results from ALFF analyses indicated that nodes in the bilateral parietal lobes (included in DAN)
show decreases in ALFF. While ALFF is typically thought to relate to metabolic consumption
(Tomasi et al., 2013), one untested hypothesis to our knowledge in the more basic neuroscience
literature is that ALFF from RS-fMRI may reflect the summed inputs to a region (i.e. the
integration of EPSPs and IPSPs) and the ability of these summed inputs to generate coordinated
oscillations, which correspond to the low-frequency fluctuations of interest in RS analyses. If
true, it could be that high levels of input from the daINS (perhaps indicated by higher ALFF in
daINS) knocks DAN nodes in the parietal lobes out of their standard oscillatory dynamics in
adolescents with BPD, although this claim is obviously speculative. This same pattern of robust
hypo-activation in the BPD group was seen in the FPN, which accords well with a previous
study that documented a shift in intrinsic connectivity from the central executive network (CEN,
which we call FPN) to the salience network in BPD (Doll et al., 2013). Such an account speaks
to one hypothesis that that salience network competes with and can potentially override higher
order networks involved in cognitive control and the voluntary deployment of attentional
resources (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002).
Another set of key findings that implicates the salience network in the neural basis of
BPD is that regions in the social brain network and DMN showed hypoconnectivity in the BPD
41
group irrespective of age. In particular, we found strong evidence of hypoconnectivity in the
right TPJ in our a priori analyses, which was corroborated in the whole-brain analysis. The right
TPJ has been implicated in social processing and particularly signaling the presence of social
agents and influences decision making via the establishment of a social context (Carter &
Huettel, 2013). The right TPJ has also been implicated in theory of mind, which is known to be
disrupted in borderline adolescents (Sharp et al., 2013). In fact, the TPJ is positioned in an
anatomically advantageous position to integrate signals from multiple seemingly disparate
cognitive domains. With this in mind, some have argued that the TPJ serves as a key node in
signaling contextual updates (Geng & Vossel, 2013). The contextual updating account suggests
that TPJ activity is not directly influenced by bottom-up salient sensory stimuli, yet acts as a
“circuit break” that allows for the reorienting of attention to information that is unexpected but
relevant (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Geng & Vossel, 2013). These findings align with task-
based studies that implicate the TPJ in social and self-other processing in BPD (Beeney et al.,
2016). Interestingly, in our data we found a widespread pattern of hypoconnectivity in our BPD
group in the right TPJ at rest across development yet aligns with studies finding
hypoconnectivity of the TPJ in individuals with BPD (Haas & Miller, 2015; O’Neill et al., 2015).
This effect was slightly complicated by a quadratic age-related effect of ALFF in the TPJ, such
that adolescents with BPD showed an inverted u-shaped trajectory of activity in the TPJ (fig 6c).
This suggests that over the adolescence, subjects with BPD tended to increase to HC levels of
TPJ ALFF yet experienced an inflection point such that by the end of adolescence TPJ ALFF
levels at rest returned to pre-adolescent levels. Interestingly, in BPD participants, results from
whole-brain centrality analyses suggest that this even this temporary increase in ALFF in the
42
adolescent years did not increase this region’s level of shared neural synchrony across the brain
and may reflect a dampened ability to influence the function of the brain as a whole in BPD.
The differential hyper vs hypo connectivity in the TPJ and daINS further underscores the
ability of graph analysis to uncover differences in connectivity between regions within the same
network. These findings taken together speculatively suggest that a core discrepancy in
adolescents with BPD is an over-reliance on the daINS, which as explained above is associated
with task set switching on very fast time scales (in Sridharan et al., 2008 onset latencies for the
insula were around 0.5 seconds post-stimulus). This effect might be mirrored by an under-
reliance on the TPJ, which is located in the same network but is typically thought of as being
crucially important in integrating new information into the representation of context, especially
of social agents. Another way of thinking about this hypothesis is that adolescents and young
adults with BPD may rely more on the more reflexive, fast-unfolding activity of the insula,
which was recently shown to play a key role in social approach behaviors in mice (Rogers-Carter
et al., 2018). On the other hand, impaired higher order mentalizing capacities, may rely on
connectivity in the TPJ, which is weakly connected in borderline adolescents.
Fronto-limbic hypothesis: the role of the ventral striatum
The second dominant signal points to the role of the VS in the pathophysiology of BPD.
Importantly, we found evidence across our a priori analysis and subsequent whole-brain analysis
of age-related decreases in coupling between the bilateral VS and portions of the mPFC and the
ACC in borderline adolescents over development, a pattern of development that was directly
opposite to HC subjects. The VS has been extensively studied in nonhuman animals and plays a
43
central role in both learning and motivation and is one of the primary targets of dopaminergic
projections from the VTA that are thought to underlie motivated reward-related behavior
(Cardinal, Parkinson, Hall, & Everitt, 2002; Russo & Nestler, 2013). Further, the VS receives
direct projections from the ACC and together these regions are thought to form a circuit that play
a central role in autoshaping paradigms, where a Pavlovian CS can induce approach behaviors
regardless of the approach behavior being beneficial for producing the desired outcome
(Parkinson, Willoughby, Robbins, & Everitt, 2000). Further, results from lesion studies suggest
that one role of the ACC (as it interacts with the VS) is to disambiguate the value of multiple
conditioned stimuli, preventing generalization between stimuli, which gains behavioral
expression through the VS (Cardinal et al., 2002). Further, the CS-GIMME results accord well
with thinking that the ACC acts directly upon the VS, rather than the other way around, yet in the
BPD group this edge was only estimated for two individuals, whereas the same edge was
estimated for all subjects in the HC group to describe the connectivity pattern. Further, the
directed influence of this dACC node increased in healthy controls over the adolescent period
(fig 4). This suggests that perhaps one key neuro-developmental difference in adolescents and
young adults with BPD is the absence of regulatory signals from the mPFC and ACC onto the
VS in BPD that shape value-based decision processes over development.
When considered jointly with the rest of the brain in our whole-brain nodal centrality
analyses, the VS showed evidence of age-related changes in connectivity to the DMN and FPN,
suggestive of their importance in the overall structure of the functional connectome in
discriminating groups. Further, connectivity of the VS to DMN nodes fully mediated the
relationship between BPD group membership and problems with negative self-image in the BPD
44
group, which measures generally feeling inadequate and unlikeable (fig 7c). This VS-DMN
finding compounds with our finding of hyper-activation in the sgACC irrespective of age in our
ALFF analyses, which is a crucial region involved in the expression and experience of emotion
(Drevets, Savitz, & Trimble, 2008; Greicius et al., 2007). This sgACC node was further involved
in an age x group interaction with the VS (fig 3d), suggesting that hypermetabolism in the
sgACC in concert with age-related decreases in connectivity with the VS could play a role in the
developmental progression of borderline pathology in adolescents, although the role of the
sgACC has been well documented in other psychiatric disorders such as major depression (Price
& Drevets, 2010). However, in our data this signal may reflect a more general “negative
baseline” of affect reported by individuals with BPD (Kuo & Linehan, 2009), which may not
change with learning.
It is worth further mention that in our fronto-limbic a priori analysis, in contrast to our
expectations, we did not find age-related effects in connectivity in the amygdala that
discriminated the BPD group from the HC group. Further we did not find evidence for either
hyper or hypo activation of either basolateral or central amygdala at rest in the BPD group in
ALFF analyses, which was found in a previous report on adults with BPD (Salvador et al., 2016).
However, we did find evidence that across development, the left CeM had lower levels of FC
with the dmPFC and rmPFC in BPD. This is consistent with a view that the phylogenetically
older CeM plays a key role in acquired fear conditioning and the mPFC has been shown to
encode memory for extinguished fear conditioning and acts to gate the output of central
amygdalar neurons to the brainstem (Milad & Quirk, 2002; Morgan, Romanski, & LeDoux,
1993; Quirk et al., 2003). However, it is worth noting that this finding was abolished when
45
included in the whole-brain network analysis, while findings in the VS survived being
contextualized within a whole-brain network.
This speculatively implies that conditioned Pavlovian responses in the CeM may not be
adequately controlled subsequent to extinction in young adults and adolescents with BPD
regardless of age. This finding in conjunction with our age-related findings in the VS provides an
early failure to falsify a recent proposal from our group that BPD is typified by alterations in
circuits that support adaptive decision-making (Hallquist, Hall, Schreiber, & Dombrovski, 2018),
while more positive mechanistic evidence is still lacking.
A note about the default mode network in the present study
Similarly, while ICA-based RS-fMRI studies have focused on hyper-connectivity of the
DMN in BPD our analytic approach was sensitive to subtle differences in individual nodes
within the DMN rather than broad hyperactivity of this network. Our results suggest a more
nuanced story with regard to the DMN, as we found a mix of hyper vs hypo connected nodes in
the DMN suggesting the hyperconnectivity in the DMN, especially in the angular gyrus, which
was higher in betweenness centrality across the development of BPD plays a key role in how
information is transferred amongst distributed brain regions in a whole brain graph. However,
hypoconnectivity, particularly of the ACC and Precuneus/PCC was also associated with
borderline symptoms, which calls into question the idea that within-network communication
amongst DMN nodes has a direct mapping onto a homogenous pattern of inter-module
connectivity across DMN nodes. Further, while more a robust pattern of results in our ALFF
analyses emerged amongst a variety of nodes in the FPN and DAN, we found no such pattern
46
amongst DMN nodes. It will become increasingly important in future research to continue to
utilize methods that allow for more global network-level effects as well as effects that may be
unique to particular components of a network. Thus, our utilization of graph theoretical analyses
in conjunction with a well-validated detailed brain parcellation provides a clear methodological
advantage to much of the resting-state literature in BPD.
Strengths and limitations
Our study has several strengths and limitations. Strengths include the use of a
comparatively large sample size (n BPD =40) that allows for finer-grained detailed analyses of
the network structure of individuals with BPD in addition to providing enough information to
estimate non-linear effects, which yielded a number of more specific novel findings (i.e.
increased DAN-Sal connectivity may play a key role in the etiology of BPD). In addition, as
compared to the extant resting state literature in BPD, our utilization of a graph theoretic
approach allowed for us to test a number of key hypotheses about the network structure of BPD
from global measures like graph-level transitivity down to connections between specific nodes,
such as between the rACC and Precuneus. Further this is the first RSFC MRI study of
adolescents with BPD symptoms that have been sampled to cover the developmental transition to
early adulthood, which has been documented as a key period of vulnerability to developing BPD.
Our study also has a number of limitations. First, while much work in developmental
psychopathology is cast in terms of developmental trajectories, our study is ultimately cross-
sectional nature, making stronger causal claims difficult to fully support (i.e. in cross-sectional
graph-theoretical studies a chicken vs egg problem arises when wondering if connectivity in the
47
salience network comes first thus causing disruptions in FPN and DAN). This speaks to the need
for longitudinal studies following at-risk adolescents as they develop. Such studies could
augment our results with studies of within-person change across this developmental period,
which may allow for a finer-grained dissection of potential equifinal and multifinal trajectories
of brain development that culminate in the development of personality pathology. A second
limitation may be the other side of the coin with respect to our analytic procedure. One problem
with finer-grained analyses is that the amount of output generated by such approaches relies
heavily on the role of the scientist in digesting results. As such, we encourage those interested to
consider whether further digestion of specific results not included in this discussion may be
warranted. While this may inject some subjectivity into the interpretation process, we
acknowledge that this is inherent in the scientific enterprise across neuroimaging studies and is
not unique to the current study. A final limitation is that in our study is that in addition to self-
reported symptoms differences, future studies should look to examine the association of resting
state connectivity as playing a key role in laboratory tasks that tap more specific cognitive
processes. In other words, conetextualizing these findings in how they predict behavior will be
crucially important moving forward.
Conclusion
These limitations notwithstanding, we reported findings of the first developmental study
of resting-state functional connectivity and found that the developmental transition from early
adolescence to young adulthood is unsurprisingly more complicated than early accounts of either
amygdala hyperactivity (Ruocco, Amirthavasagam, & Zakzanis, 2012) or hyperactivation and
hyperconnectivity of the DMN (Visintin, Panfilis, et al., 2016; Whitfield-Gabrieli & Ford, 2012).
48
Our results speak to a central role of abnormal hyper and hypoconnectivity of two key nodes in
the salience network, the right daINS and TPJ in the etiology of BPD in a sample of young adults
and adolescents. We further posited a hypothesis that developmental increases in a reliance on
salience-related circuitry in the striatum and increased enmeshment of attentional intrinsic
networks may play a role in affective instability in adolescents with BPD via frequent transitions
in attention, which is mediated through the insula. We additionally document for the first time a
developmental reversal of resting state connectivity strength between subcortical regions
involved in value-based decision making and the medial prefrontal regions that regulate the
behavioral expression of motivated behaviors. Future work should aim to integrate such findings
with data on task-evoked behavior and should aim to replicate and expand on central findings
through additional developmental neuroimaging studies in this vulnerable population.
49
References
Adolphs, R. (2009). The Social Brain: Neural Basis of Social Knowledge. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60(1), 693–716. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514
Alakörkkö, T., Saarimäki, H., Glerean, E., Saramäki, J., & Korhonen, O. (2017). Effects of
spatial smoothing on functional brain networks. European Journal of Neuroscience,
46(9), 2471–2480. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13717
Alexander, G. E., & Crutcher, M. D. (1990). Functional architecture of basal ganglia circuits:
neural substrates of parallel processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 13(7), 266–271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(90)90107-L
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
Arbabshirani, M. R., Damaraju, E., Phlypo, R., Plis, S., Allen, E., Ma, S., … Calhoun, V. D.
(2014). Impact of autocorrelation on functional connectivity. NeuroImage, 102, 294–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.045
Avants, B. B. (2018). ANTsR: ANTs in R: Quantification Tools for Biomedical Images (Version
0.4.5). Retrieved from https://neuroconductor.org/package/ANTsR
Balleine, B. W., Delgado, M. R., & Hikosaka, O. (2007). The Role of the Dorsal Striatum in
Reward and Decision-Making. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(31), 8161–8165.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1554-07.2007
Barrett, L. F., & Simmons, W. K. (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 16(7), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3950
50
Bassett, D. S., & Sporns, O. (2017). Network neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 20(3), 353–
364. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4502
Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of
economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336–372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010
Beeney, J. E., Hallquist, M. N., Ellison, W. D., & Levy, K. N. (2016). Self–other disturbance in
borderline personality disorder: Neural, self-report, and performance-based evidence.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(1), 28–39.
https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000127
Behrens, T. E. J., Johansen-Berg, H., Woolrich, M. W., Smith, S. M., Wheeler-Kingshott, C. a.
M., Boulby, P. A., … Matthews, P. M. (2003). Non-invasive mapping of connections
between human thalamus and cortex using diffusion imaging. Nature Neuroscience, 6(7),
750–757. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1075
Betzel, R. F., Byrge, L., He, Y., Goñi, J., Zuo, X.-N., & Sporns, O. (2014). Changes in structural
and functional connectivity among resting-state networks across the human lifespan.
NeuroImage, 102, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.067
Betzel, R. F., Gu, S., Medaglia, J. D., Pasqualetti, F., & Bassett, D. S. (2016). Optimally
controlling the human connectome: the role of network topology. Scientific Reports, 6,
30770. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30770
Biswal, B. B., Yetkin, F. Z., Haughton, V. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1995). Functional connectivity in
the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine, 34(4), 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910340409
51
Blakemore, S.-J. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4),
267–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2353
Blakemore, S.-J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural
processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
psych-010213-115202
Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. (1990). Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control. San
Francisco, CA, USA: Holden-Day, Inc.
Bright, M. G., Tench, C. R., & Murphy, K. (2017). Potential pitfalls when denoising resting state
fMRI data using nuisance regression. Neuroimage, 154, 159–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.027
Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009). Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of
structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(3), 186–198.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2575
Burgess, P. W. (1997). Theory and methodology in executive function research. In P. Rabbitt
(Ed.), Theory and Methodology of Frontal and Executive Function (p. pp.81-116).
Retrieved from http://www.psypress.com/9780863774850
Cao, H., Plichta, M. M., Schäfer, A., Haddad, L., Grimm, O., Schneider, M., … Tost, H. (2014).
Test–retest reliability of fMRI-based graph theoretical properties during working
memory, emotion processing, and resting state. NeuroImage, 84, 888–900.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.013
52
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2002). Emotion and motivation: the
role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 26(3), 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(02)00007-6
Carter, R. M., & Huettel, S. A. (2013). A Nexus Model of the Temporal-Parietal Junction.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(7), 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.007
Chang, L. J., Yarkoni, T., Khaw, M. W., & Sanfey, A. G. (2013). Decoding the Role of the
Insula in Human Cognition: Functional Parcellation and Large-Scale Reverse Inference.
Cerebral Cortex, 23(3), 739–749. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs065
Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent
risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science,
14(2), F1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x
Choi, E. Y., Yeo, B. T. T., & Buckner, R. L. (2012). The organization of the human striatum
estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108(8), 2242–
2263. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00270.2012
Christova, P., Lewis, S. M., Jerde, T. A., Lynch, J. K., & Georgopoulos, A. P. (2011). True
associations between resting fMRI time series based on innovations. Journal of Neural
Engineering, 8(4), 046025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046025
Ciric, R., Wolf, D. H., Power, J. D., Roalf, D. R., Baum, G. L., Ruparel, K., … Satterthwaite, T.
D. (2017). Benchmarking of participant-level confound regression strategies for the
control of motion artifact in studies of functional connectivity. NeuroImage,
154(Supplement C), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.020
53
Clifton, A., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2007). Evidence for a single latent class of Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders borderline personality pathology. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 48(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2006.07.002
Cohen, P. (2008). Child Development and Personality Disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, 31(3), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2008.03.005
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in
the brain. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 3(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755
Cox, R. W. (1996). AFNI: Software for Analysis and Visualization of Functional Magnetic
Resonance Neuroimages. Computers and Biomedical Research, 3(29), 162–173.
https://doi.org/10.1006/cbmr.1996.0014
Crowell, S. E., Beauchaine, T. P., & Linehan, M. M. (2009). A biosocial developmental model
of borderline personality: Elaborating and extending Linehan’s theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 135(3), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015616
Csárdi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research.
InterJournal, 1695.
Cunningham, M. G., Bhattacharyya, S., & Benes, F. M. (2002). Amygdalo-cortical sprouting
continues into early adulthood: Implications for the development of normal and abnormal
function during adolescence. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 453(2), 116–130.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.10376
Das, P., Calhoun, V., & Malhi, G. S. (2014). Bipolar and borderline patients display differential
patterns of functional connectivity among resting state networks. NeuroImage, 98, 73–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.062
54
de Reus, M. A., & van den Heuvel, M. P. (2013). Estimating false positives and negatives in
brain networks. NeuroImage, 70, 402–409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.066
Doll, A., Sorg, C., Manoliu, A., Meng, C., Wöller, A., Förstl, H., … Riedl, V. (2013). Shifted
intrinsic connectivity of central executive and salience network in borderline personality
disorder. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00727
Domsalla, M., Koppe, G., Niedtfeld, I., Vollstädt-Klein, S., Schmahl, C., Bohus, M., & Lis, S.
(2014). Cerebral processing of social rejection in patients with borderline personality
disorder. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(11), 1789–1797.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst176
Drevets, W. C., Savitz, J., & Trimble, M. (2008). The Subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex in
Mood Disorders. CNS Spectrums, 13(8), 663–681.
Dziobek, I., Preißler, S., Grozdanovic, Z., Heuser, I., Heekeren, H. R., & Roepke, S. (2011).
Neuronal correlates of altered empathy and social cognition in borderline personality
disorder. NeuroImage, 57(2), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.005
Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Power, J. D., Dosenbach, N. U. F., Church, J. A., Miezin, F. M., …
Petersen, S. E. (2009). Functional Brain Networks Develop from a “Local to Distributed”
Organization. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(5).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000381
Fair, D. A., Dosenbach, N. U. F., Church, J. A., Cohen, A. L., Brahmbhatt, S., Miezin, F. M., …
Schlaggar, B. L. (2007). Development of distinct control networks through segregation
55
and integration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33), 13507–
13512. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705843104
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002, November). Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders. New York:Biometrics Research,
New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Fonagy, P., & Bateman, A. (2008). The development of borderline personality disorder--a
mentalizing model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22(1), 4–21.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.1.4
Fonov, V. S., Evans, A. C., McKinstry, R. C., Almli, C. R., & Collins, D. L. (2009). Unbiased
nonlinear average age-appropriate brain templates from birth to adulthood. NeuroImage,
Supplement 1(47), S102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(09)70884-5
Fox, M. D., & Greicius, M. (2010). Clinical applications of resting state functional connectivity.
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2010.00019
Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Flannery, J., Goff, B., Gee, D. G., Humphreys, K. L., Telzer, E., …
Tottenham, N. (2014). The development of human amygdala functional connectivity at
rest from 4 to 23 years: a cross-sectional study. NeuroImage, 95, 193–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.038
Gates, K. M., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2012). Group search algorithm recovers effective
connectivity maps for individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous samples.
NeuroImage, 63(1), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.026
56
Geng, J. J., & Vossel, S. (2013). Re-evaluating the role of TPJ in attentional control: Contextual
updating? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(10, Part 2), 2608–2620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.08.010
Greicius, M. D., Flores, B. H., Menon, V., Glover, G. H., Solvason, H. B., Kenna, H., …
Schatzberg, A. F. (2007). Resting-state functional connectivity in major depression:
abnormally increased contributions from subgenual cingulate cortex and thalamus.
Biological Psychiatry, 62(5), 429–437.
Greve, D. N., & Fischl, B. (2009). Accurate and robust brain image alignment using boundary-
based registration., Accurate and Robust Brain Image Alignment using Boundary-based
Registration. NeuroImage, NeuroImage, 48, 48(1, 1), 63, 63–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.060, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.060
Guimerà, R., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Cartography of complex networks: modules and
universal roles. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2005(02),
P02001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2005/02/P02001
Gunderson, J. G., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2008). BPD’s Interpersonal Hypersensitivity Phenotype: A
Gene-Environment-Developmental Model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22(1), 22–
41. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.1.22
Haas, B. W., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Borderline personality traits and brain activity during
emotional perspective taking. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment,
6(4), 315–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000130
57
Hallquist, M. N., Geier, C. F., & Luna, B. (2018). Incentives facilitate developmental
improvement in inhibitory control by modulating control-related networks. NeuroImage,
172, 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.045
Hallquist, M. N., Hall, N. T., Schreiber, A. M., & Dombrovski, A. Y. (2018). Interpersonal
dysfunction in borderline personality: a decision neuroscience perspective. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 21, 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.011
Hallquist, M. N., & Hillary, F. G. (2018). Graph theory approaches to functional network
organization in brain disorders: A critique for a brave new small-world. Network
Neuroscience, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00054
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2016). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data
Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Second Edition (2nd edition). New York, NY:
Springer.
Henry, T. R., Feczko, E., Cordova, M., Earl, E., Williams, S., Nigg, J. T., … Gates, K. M.
(2019). Comparing directed functional connectivity between groups with confirmatory
subgrouping GIMME. NeuroImage, 188, 642–653.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.12.040
Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2013). The interpersonal core
of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(3), 270–295.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2013.27.3.270
Hwang, K., Hallquist, M. N., & Luna, B. (2013). The Development of Hub Architecture in the
Human Functional Brain Network. Cerebral Cortex, 23(10), 2380–2393.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs227
58
Hyndman, R., Athanasopoulos, G., Bergmeir, C., Caceres, G., Chhay, L., O’Hara-Wild, M., …
Zhou, Z. (2019). forecast: Forecasting Functions for Time Series and Linear Models
(Version 8.5). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=forecast
Kelly, A. M. C., Uddin, L. Q., Biswal, B. B., Castellanos, F. X., & Milham, M. P. (2008).
Competition between functional brain networks mediates behavioral variability.
NeuroImage, 39(1), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.008
Korn, C. W., Rosée, L. L., Heekeren, H. R., & Roepke, S. (2016). Social feedback processing in
borderline personality disorder. Psychological Medicine, 46(3), 575–587.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171500207X
Krause-Utz, A., Veer, I. M., Rombouts, S. a. R. B., Bohus, M., Schmahl, C., & Elzinga, B. M.
(2014). Amygdala and anterior cingulate resting-state functional connectivity in
borderline personality disorder patients with a history of interpersonal trauma.
Psychological Medicine, 44(13), 2889–2901.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000324
Kuo, J. R., & Linehan, M. M. (2009). Disentangling emotion processes in borderline personality
disorder: physiological and self-reported assessment of biological vulnerability, baseline
intensity, and reactivity to emotionally evocative stimuli. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 118(3), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016392
Laird, A. R., Fox, P. M., Eickhoff, S. B., Turner, J. A., Ray, K. L., McKay, D. R., … Fox, P. T.
(2011). Behavioral Interpretations of Intrinsic Connectivity Networks. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 4022–4037. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00077
59
Lenzenweger, M. F., Lane, M. C., Loranger, A. W., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). DSM-IV
Personality Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biological
Psychiatry, 6(62), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.09.019
Luna, B., Marek, S., Larsen, B., Tervo-Clemmens, B., & Chahal, R. (2015). An Integrative
Model of the Maturation of Cognitive Control. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 38(1),
151–170. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-034054
Maia, T. V., & Frank, M. J. (2011). From reinforcement learning models to psychiatric and
neurological disorders. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 154. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2723
Marek, S., Hwang, K., Foran, W., Hallquist, M. N., & Luna, B. (2015). The Contribution of
Network Organization and Integration to the Development of Cognitive Control. PLOS
Biology, 13(12), e1002328. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002328
McKiernan, K. A., Kaufman, J. N., Kucera-Thompson, J., & Binder, J. R. (2003). A Parametric
Manipulation of Factors Affecting Task-induced Deactivation in Functional
Neuroimaging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(3), 394–408.
https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321593117
Menon, V., & Uddin, L. Q. (2010). Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model
of insula function. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5–6), 655–667.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0
Milad, M. R., & Quirk, G. J. (2002). Neurons in medial prefrontal cortex signal memory for fear
extinction. Nature, 420(6911), 70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01138
60
Millman, K. J., & Brett, M. (2007). Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in
Python. Computing in Science Engineering, 9(3), 52–55.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.46
Modestin, J., Abrecht, I., Tschaggelar, W., & Hoffmann, H. (1983). Diagnosing borderline. A
contribution to the question of its conceptual validity. Archiv Fur Psychiatrie Und
Nervenkrankheiten, 233(5), 359–370.
Morgan, M. A., Romanski, L. M., & LeDoux, J. E. (1993). Extinction of emotional learning:
Contribution of medial prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience Letters, 163(1), 109–113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(93)90241-C
New, A. S., Hazlett, E. A., Buchsbaum, M. S., Goodman, M., Mitelman, S. A., Newmark, R., …
Siever, L. J. (2007). Amygdala–Prefrontal Disconnection in Borderline Personality
Disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology, 32(7), 1629–1640.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301283
Noonan, M. P., Mars, R. B., Neubert, F. X., Ahmed, B., Smith, J., Krug, K., & Sallet, J. (2017).
Chapter 15 - Organization of the Social Brain in Macaques and Humans. In J.-C. Dreher
& L. Tremblay (Eds.), Decision Neuroscience (pp. 189–198).
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805308-9.00015-4
O’Neill, A., D’Souza, A., Samson, A. C., Carballedo, A., Kerskens, C., & Frodl, T. (2015).
Dysregulation between emotion and theory of mind networks in borderline personality
disorder. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 231(1), 25–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.11.002
61
Parkinson, J. A., Willoughby, P. J., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2000). Disconnection of the
anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens core impairs Pavlovian approach
behavior: further evidence for limbic cortical-ventral striatopallidal systems. Behavioral
Neuroscience, 114(1), 42–63.
Pfeifer, J. H., Masten, C. L., Moore, W. E., Oswald, T. M., Mazziotta, J. C., Iacoboni, M., &
Dapretto, M. (2011). Entering adolescence: resistance to peer influence, risky behavior,
and neural changes in emotion reactivity. Neuron, 69(5), 1029–1036.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.019
Pfohl, B., Blum, N. S., & Zimmermann, M. (1997). Structured interview for DSM-IV
personality: SIDP-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Poreh, A. M., Rawlings, D., Claridge, G., Freeman, J. L., Faulkner, C., & Shelton, C. (2006).
The BPQ: A Scale for the Assessment of Borderline Personality Based on DSM-IV
Criteria. Journal of Personality Disorders, 20(3), 247–260.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2006.20.3.247
Power, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2012). Spurious
but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject
motion. NeuroImage, 59(3), 2142–2154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018
Power, J. D., Fair, D. A., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2010). The development of Human
Functional Brain Networks. Neuron, 67(5), 735–748.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.017
62
Price, J. L., & Drevets, W. C. (2010). Neurocircuitry of mood disorders.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 192–216.
Pruim, R. H. R., Mennes, M., Buitelaar, J. K., & Beckmann, C. F. (2015). Evaluation of ICA-
AROMA and alternative strategies for motion artifact removal in resting state fMRI.
NeuroImage, 112, 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.063
Pruim, R. H. R., Mennes, M., van Rooij, D., Llera, A., Buitelaar, J. K., & Beckmann, C. F.
(2015). ICA-AROMA: A robust ICA-based strategy for removing motion artifacts from
fMRI data. NeuroImage, 112, 267–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.064
Quirk, G. J., Likhtik, E., Pelletier, J. G., & Paré, D. (2003). Stimulation of Medial Prefrontal
Cortex Decreases the Responsiveness of Central Amygdala Output Neurons. Journal of
Neuroscience, 23(25), 8800–8807. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-25-
08800.2003
Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G.
L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 98(2), 676–682. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676
Raichle, M. E., & Snyder, A. Z. (2007). A default mode of brain function: A brief history of an
evolving idea. NeuroImage, 37(4), 1083–1090.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.041
Roche, A. (2011). A Four-Dimensional Registration Algorithm With Application to Joint
Correction of Motion and Slice Timing in fMRI. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging,
30(8), 1546–1554. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2011.2131152
63
Roepke, S., Vater, A., Preißler, S., Heekeren, H. R., & Dziobek, I. (2013). Social cognition in
borderline personality disorder. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 195.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00195
Rogers-Carter, M. M., Varela, J. A., Gribbons, K. B., Pierce, A. F., McGoey, M. T., Ritchey, M.,
& Christianson, J. P. (2018). Insular cortex mediates approach and avoidance responses
to social affective stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 21(3), 404.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0071-y
Rosen, M. L., Sheridan, M. A., Sambrook, K. A., Dennison, M. J., Jenness, J. L., Askren, M. K.,
… McLaughlin, K. A. (2018). Salience network response to changes in emotional
expressions of others is heightened during early adolescence: relevance for social
functioning. Developmental Science, 21(3), e12571. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12571
Rosenkranz, J. A., Moore, H., & Grace, A. A. (2003). The Prefrontal Cortex Regulates Lateral
Amygdala Neuronal Plasticity and Responses to Previously Conditioned Stimuli. Journal
of Neuroscience, 23(35), 11054–11064. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-35-
11054.2003
Rubinov, M., & Sporns, O. (2011). Weight-conserving characterization of complex functional
brain networks. NeuroImage, 56(4), 2068–2079.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.069
Ruocco, A. C., Amirthavasagam, S., & Zakzanis, K. K. (2012). Amygdala and hippocampal
volume reductions as candidate endophenotypes for borderline personality disorder: A
meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging studies. Psychiatry Research:
Neuroimaging, 201(3), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.02.012
64
Ruocco, A. C., Medaglia, J. D., Tinker, J. R., Ayaz, H., Forman, E. M., Newman, C. F., …
Chute, D. L. (2010). Medial prefrontal cortex hyperactivation during social exclusion in
borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 181(3), 233–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.12.001
Russo, S. J., & Nestler, E. J. (2013). The brain reward circuitry in mood disorders. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 14(9), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3381
Salvador, R., Vega, D., Pascual, J. C., Marco, J., Canales-Rodríguez, E. J., Aguilar, S., …
Pomarol-Clotet, E. (2016). Converging Medial Frontal Resting State and Diffusion-Based
Abnormalities in Borderline Personality Disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 79(2), 107–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.08.026
Sarkheil, P., Ibrahim, C. N., Schneider, F., Mathiak, K., & Klasen, M. (2019). Aberrant
functional connectivity profiles of brain regions associated with salience and reward
processing in female patients with borderline personality disorder. Brain Imaging and
Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-019-00065-z
Schaefer, A., Kong, R., Gordon, E. M., Laumann, T. O., Zuo, X.-N., Holmes, A. J., … Yeo, B.
T. T. (2018). Local-Global Parcellation of the Human Cerebral Cortex from Intrinsic
Functional Connectivity MRI. Cerebral Cortex, 28(9), 3095–3114.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx179
Schulze, L., Schmahl, C., & Niedtfeld, I. (2016). Neural Correlates of Disturbed Emotion
Processing in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multimodal Meta-Analysis. Biological
Psychiatry, 79(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.03.027
65
Sharp, C., Ha, C., Carbone, C., Kim, S., Perry, K., Williams, L., & Fonagy, P. (2013).
Hypermentalizing in adolescent inpatients: treatment effects and association with
borderline traits. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(1), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2013.27.1.3
Silbersweig, D., Clarkin, J. F., Goldstein, M., Kernberg, O. F., Tuescher, O., Levy, K. N., …
Stern, E. (2007). Failure of Frontolimbic Inhibitory Function in the Context of Negative
Emotion in Borderline Personality Disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(12),
1832–1841. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06010126
Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M. W., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E. J., Johansen-
Berg, H., … Matthews, P. M. (2004). Advances in functional and structural MR image
analysis and implementation as FSL. NeuroImage, Supplement 1(23), S208–S219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051
Sridharan, D., Levitin, D. J., & Menon, V. (2008). A critical role for the right fronto-insular
cortex in switching between central-executive and default-mode networks. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(34), 12569–12574.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800005105
Steinberg, L., Icenogle, G., Shulman, E. P., Breiner, K., Chein, J., Bacchini, D., … Takash, H.
M. S. (2018). Around the world, adolescence is a time of heightened sensation seeking
and immature self-regulation. Developmental Science, 21(2), e12532.
https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12532
66
Tekin, S., & Cummings, J. L. (2002). Frontal–subcortical neuronal circuits and clinical
neuropsychiatry: An update. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53(2), 647–654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00428-2
Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2019). mediation: Causal
Mediation Analysis (Version 4.4.7). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=mediation
Tomasi, D., Wang, G.-J., & Volkow, N. D. (2013). Energetic cost of brain functional
connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33), 13642–13647.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1303346110
Uddin, L. Q., Nomi, J. S., Hébert-Seropian, B., Ghaziri, J., & Boucher, O. (2017). Structure and
Function of the Human Insula. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 34(4), 300.
https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000377
van den Heuvel, M. P., de Lange, S. C., Zalesky, A., Seguin, C., Yeo, B. T. T., & Schmidt, R.
(2017). Proportional thresholding in resting-state fMRI functional connectivity networks
and consequences for patient-control connectome studies: Issues and recommendations.
NeuroImage, 152, 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.005
Visintin, E., De Panfilis, C., Amore, M., Balestrieri, M., Wolf, R. C., & Sambataro, F. (2016).
Mapping the brain correlates of borderline personality disorder: A functional
neuroimaging meta-analysis of resting state studies. Journal of Affective Disorders, 204,
262–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.07.025
Visintin, E., Panfilis, C. D., Amore, M., Balestrieri, M., Wolf, R. C., & Sambataro, F. (2016).
Mapping the brain correlates of borderline personality disorder: A functional
67
neuroimaging meta-analysis of resting state studies. Journal of Affective Disorders, 204,
262–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.07.025
Vossel, S., Geng, J. J., & Fink, G. R. (2014). Dorsal and Ventral Attention Systems: Distinct
Neural Circuits but Collaborative Roles. The Neuroscientist, 20(2), 150–159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858413494269
Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses.
Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912557
Watson, C. G. (2017). brainGraph: Graph Theory Analysis of Brain MRI Data (Version 1.0.0).
Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/brainGraph/index.html
Weissman, D. H., Roberts, K. C., Visscher, K. M., & Woldorff, M. G. (2006). The neural bases
of momentary lapses in attention. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 971.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1727
Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Ford, J. M. (2012). Default mode network activity and connectivity in
psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 49–76.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143049
Wolf, R. C., Sambataro, F., Vasic, N., Schmid, M., Thomann, P. A., Bienentreu, S. D., & Wolf,
N. D. (2011). Aberrant connectivity of resting-state networks in borderline personality
disorder. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience: JPN, 36(6), 402–411.
https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.100150
Woolrich, M. W., Ripley, B. D., Brady, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001). Temporal Autocorrelation in
Univariate Linear Modeling of FMRI Data. NeuroImage, 14(6), 1370–1386.
https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0931
68
Xu, T., Cullen, K. R., Mueller, B., Schreiner, M. W., Lim, K. O., Schulz, S. C., & Parhi, K. K.
(2016). Network analysis of functional brain connectivity in borderline personality
disorder using resting-state fMRI. NeuroImage : Clinical, 11, 302–315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.006
Yeo, B. T. T., Krienen, F. M., Sepulcre, J., Sabuncu, M. R., Lashkari, D., Hollinshead, M., …
Buckner, R. L. (2011). The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by
intrinsic functional connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 106(3), 1125–1165.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00338.2011
Zabelina, D. L., & Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Dynamic network interactions supporting
internally-oriented cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 40, 86–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.06.014
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Khera, G. S., & Bleichmar, J. (2001). Treatment histories of
borderline inpatients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42(2), 144–150.
https://doi.org/10.1053/comp.2001.19749
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Ridolfi, M. E., Jager-Hyman, S., & al, et. (2006). Reported
Childhood Onset of Self-Mutilation Among Borderline Patients. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 20(1), 9–15.
Zang, Y. F., He, Y., Zhu, C. Z., Cao, Q. J., Sui, M. Q., Liang, M., … Wang, Y. F. (2007).
Altered baseline brain activity in children with ADHD revealed by resting-state
functional MRI. Brain & Development, 29(2), 83–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2006.07.002
69
Zelkowitz, P., Paris, J., Guzder, J., Feldman, R., Roy, C., & Rosval, L. (2007). A Five-Year
Follow-Up of Patients With Borderline Pathology of Childhood. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 21(6), 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.6.664
Zuo, X.-N., Di Martino, A., Kelly, C., Shehzad, Z. E., Gee, D. G., Klein, D. F., … Milham, M. P.
(2010). The Oscillating Brain: Complex and Reliable. NeuroImage, 49(2), 1432–1445.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.037
70
Appendix A
Table 1.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristic BPD (n = 40) HC (n = 42)
Age (SD) 20.84 (4.42) 20.61 (4.16)
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 3 2
Not Hispanic or Latino 36 40
Not Provided/Missing 1 0
Race
Caucasian 31 30
African American 3 7
Asian American 2 1
Bi/Multiracial 2 4
Not Provided/Missing 2 0
Average Annual Income
< $5,000-$19,999 10 11
$20,000-$34,9999 9 7
$35,000 - $59,999 8 5
$60,000 - $99,999 5 6
$100,000 + 3 10
Not Provided/Missing 5 3
Sexuality
Heterosexual 28 40
Gay/Lesbian 1 1
Bisexual 8 0
Other 1 1
Not Provided/Missing 2 0
71
Table 2.
Results of the edge-wise a priori analysis
Edge (labels) Effect Est.(S.E.) t-score
R VS – L sgACC (420-169) Group x Age -0.056(0.015) -3.79**
R VS – L vmPFC (420-168) Group x Age -0.048(0.014) -3.35**
R VS – L rmPFC (420-173) Group x Age -0.044(0.015) -2.97*
L VS – L dACC (415-177) Group x Age2 -0.047(0.015) -3.15*
L VS – R rACC (415-381) Group x Age2 -0.041(0.014) -2.96*
L CeM – R dmPFC (403-385) Group -0.045(0.015) -2.95*
L CeM – R rmPFC (403-382) Group -0.043(0.015) -2.82*
L rACC – L Precuneus (174-200) Group -0.009(0.002) -4.04***
R TPJ – L dmPFC (295-178) Group -0.007(0.002) -3.19*
R TPJ – L pMTS (295-158) Group -0.007(0.002) -3.18*
R TPJ – L rACC (295-174) Group -0.007(0.002) -3.16*
R TPJ – L TPJ/AG (295-163) Group -0.006(0.002) -2.94*
R daINS – R vaINS (307-302) Group 0.006(0.002) 2.83*
Note: Results are displayed with fronto-limbic results in the top section and
social/DMN results in the bottom section and are sorted from highest absolute t-
score, while grouping edges that come from the same node (***p < .0001, **p
<.001, *p<.005).
72
Table 3.
Global Graph Metrics
Metric BPD HC Group Group x Age
Modularity 0.038(0.018) 0.035 (0.016) 0.30(0.77) -0.33(0.74)
Transitivity 0.928(0.033) 0.938(0.031) -1.57(0.12) 1.42(0.16)
Global efficiency 0.240(0.041) 0.248(0.040) -1.33(0.19) -0.98 (0.33)
Characteristic path
length
1.09(0.04) 1.10(0.04) 1.23(0.22) -1.12(0.27)
Diameter 16.77(3.12) 15.71 (3.24) -0.78(0.43) 0.43(0.67)
Note. Group and group x age effects for regression models predicting global
graph metrics. The first two columns give the mean and sd of the graph metric
per group, while the second two columns denote the respective t-scores and p-
values for main effects of group and the interaction of group and age in
predicting the global metric of interest. All models included the subject’s mean
FC as a covariate of no interest given group differences in overall strength of
connections displayed in Fig 1. Developmental trajectories are displayed in
figure S1.
73
Table 4.
Whole-brain nodal centrality results
Node (label) Module Metric Effect Est.(S.E.) t-score
R daINS (Roi307) Sal Vis_z Group 0.357(0.096) 3.70**
SomMot_z Group 0.149(0.038) 3.93***
DAN_z Group 0.016(0.003) 4.55***
Sal_z Group 0.784(0.234) 3.35**
FPN_z Group 0.241(0.078) 3.11*
DMN_z Group 0.165(0.050) 3.58**
R TPJ (Roi295) Sal Strength Group -0.003(0.001) -2.99*
Vis_z Group -0.288(0.093) -3.11*
DAN_z Group -0.011(0.003) -3.30**
FPN_z Group -0.272(0.073) -3.71**
DMN_z Group -0.143(0.043) -3.31**
R Putamen (Roi419) Sal DAN_z Group x Age 0.010(0.003) 2.87*
Betweenness Group x Age2 0.0002(0.000) 2.82*
L daINS (Roi102) Sal DMN_z Group 0.121(0.042) 2.89*
L SPL (Roi82) DAN Sal_z Group x Age2 0.560(0.179) 3.12*
R Mid Occipital Gyrus (Roi274) DAN Betweenness Group 0.0002(0.000) 3.14*
R VS (Roi420) Limbic DMN_z Group x Age -0.108(0.038) -2.84*
L VS (Roi415) Limbic FPN_z Group x Age2 -0.168(0.057) -2.96*
L Temporal Pole (Roi125) Limbic Limbic_z Group x Age -0.141(0.038) -3.75**
R IPL (Roi336) FPN DAN_z Group 0.010(0.003) 2.90*
L Precuneus (Roi144) FPN Limbic_z Group x Age -0.107(0.036) -2.93*
R IPL (Roi333) FPN FPN_z Group x Age 0.201(0.061) 3.44**
R Mid Frontal Gyrus (Roi352) FPN DMN_z Group x Age 0.112(0.037) 3.00*
L IPL (Roi127) FPN DMN_z Group x Age -0.106(0.038) -2.81*
L Sup Frontal Gyrus (Roi186) DMN Sal_z Group 0.707(0.231) 3.06*
FPN_z Group 0.218(0.077) 2.84*
L Precuneus (Roi200) DMN Limbic_z Group -0.113(0.037) -3.03*
FPN_z Group x Age -0.191(0.061) -3.14*
L rACC (Roi174) DMN SomMot_z Group -0.121(0.038) -3.20*
L MTG (Roi157) DMN Vis_z Group -0.288(0.100) -2.88*
R Mid OFC (Roi376) DMN Vis_z Group 0.279(0.099) 2.83*
R Thalamus (Roi412) DMN FPN_z Group x Age2 -0.165(0.058) -2.83*
R PCC (Roi398) DMN DMN_z Group x Age -0.118(0.041) -2.89*
L AG (Roi164) DMN Betweenness Group 0.0002(0.000) 2.88*
L Mid Occipital Gyrus (Roi161) DMN Betweenness Group 0.0002(0.000) 3.06*
R Postcentral Gyrus (Roi253) SomMot Vis_z Group -0.286(0.101) -2.84*
74
R SMA (Roi254) SomMot Limbic_z Group x Age -0.124(0.038) -3.28*
L Postcentral Gyrus (Roi43) SomMot Limbic_z Group x Age2 -0.098(0.034) -2.89*
R pSTG (Roi237) SomMot Betweenness Group x Age 0.0002(0.000) 3.43**
L Postcentral Gyrus (Roi60) SomMot Betweenness Group 0.0002(0.000) 2.81*
L Mid Occipital Gyrus (Roi14) Vis Vis_z Group 0.348(0.100) 3.48**
SomMot_z Group 0.142(0.039) 3.68**
DAN_z Group 0.012(0.003) 3.54**
Sal_z Group 0.670(0.232) 2.89*
FPN_z Group 0.258(0.078) 3.31**
DMN_z Group 0.177(0.043) 4.04***
R Cuneus (Roi229) Vis SomMot_z Group 0.117(0.037) 3.14*
R Lingual Gyrus (Roi207) Vis DAN_z Group -0.100(0.003) -2.84*
R Fusiform Gyrus (Roi201) Vis DAN_z Group -0.011(0.003) -3.06*
R Lingual Gyrus (Roi206) Vis Limbic_z Group x Age2 -0.094(0.032) -2.93*
R ITG (Roi209) Vis Limbic_z Group -0.122(0.039) -3.09*
L Inf Occipital Gyrus (Roi12) Vis DMN_z Group 0.145(0.044) 3.29*
R Cuneus (Roi224) Vis Betweenness Group 0.0002(0.000) 2.92*
R Lingual Gyrus (Roi205) Vis Betweenness Group x Age -0.0002(0.000) -2.81*
Note. Nodal centrality results from the logistic regression that fell below .005 (***p < .0001, **p <.001, *p<.005).
To aide in visual inspection, we grouped our results into sections. From top to bottom, sections separated by thick
bars represent nodes within a given module. Node labels in the first column denote labels taken from Schaefer et.
al., (2017) for comparability, while node numbers above 400 were subcortical nodes added from various
parcellations (see Method). All metrics with a “_z” suffix refer to one of seven mod-strength scores (see graph
metrics for more details).
75
Table 5.
Whole-brain nodal ALFF results
Node (label) Network Metric Effect Est.(S.E.) t-score
R daINS (Roi307) Sal ALFF Group 0.023(0.006) 3.763**
L anterior temporal gyrus (Roi97) Sal ALFF Group 0.018(0.006) 2.86*
L daINS (Roi103) Sal ALFF Group 0.020(0.006) 3.13*
L dACC (Roi107) Sal ALFF Group 0.022(0.006) 3.62**
R TPJ (Roi295) Sal fALFF Group x Age2 -0.065(0.018) -3.55**
Sal ALFF Group x Age2 -0.021(0.006) -3.35**
R pMTS (Roi294) Sal ALFF Group x Age2 -0.019(0.006) -3.03*
R SMG (Roi296) Sal ALFF Group x Age2 -0.019(0.006) -3.01*
R Precuneus (Roi288) DAN fALFF Group -0.049(0.017) -2.97*
ALFF Group -0.022(0.007) -3.37**
Group x Age -0.021(0.007) -3.23*
R Parieto-occip sulcus (Roi277) DAN ALFF Group -0.022(0.006) -3.43**
R SPL (Roi280) DAN ALFF Group -0.019(0.006) -3.03*
R SPL (Roi282) DAN ALFF Group -0.020(0.007) -3.09*
L IPL (Roi73) DAN fALFF Group -0.049(0.014) -3.40**
ALFF Group -0.020(0.006) -3.31**
L IPL (Roi76) DAN fALFF Group -0.044(0.015) -3.00*
ALFF Group -0.019(0.006) -3.12**
L SPL (Roi81) DAN fALFF Group -0.048(0.016) -3.05*
ALFF Group -0.022(0.007) -3.37**
L mOFC (Roi116) Limbic ALFF Group x Age -0.019(0.007) -2.81*
R Inf temporal gyrus (Roi328) Limbic ALFF Group 0.022(0.007) -3.26*
L vlOFC (Roi135) FPN fALFF Group -0.056(0.018) -3.08*
L IFG (Roi136) FPN ALFF Group x Age2 -0.017(0.006) -2.96*
L dlPFC (Roi137) FPN fALFF Group -0.058(0.017) -3.35**
L Inf precentral gyrus (Roi141) FPN fALFF Group -0.056(0.017) -3.24*
R Sup occipital gyrus (Roi334) FPN ALFF Group x Age -0.022(0.006) -3.52*
R vlOFC (Roi342) FPN fALFF Group x Age2 -0.056(0.018) -3.06**
L sgACC (Roi169) DMN ALFF Group 0.022(0.007) 3.39**
L Thalamus (Roi406) SomMot ALFF Group 0.019(0.006) 3.27*
L Fusiform gyrus (Roi2) Vis ALFF Group x Age -0.019(0.006) -3.09*
L IPL (Roi31) Vis ALFF Group -0.018(0.006) -2.97*
Note. Nodal ALFF results from the logistic regression that fell below .005 (***p < .0001, **p <.001,
*p<.005). To aide in visual inspection, we grouped our results into sections. From top to bottom,
sections separated by thick bars represent nodes within a given module
76
Table 6.
Significant effects mediated through self-report scales
Node (label) Network Outcome Self-report measure Effect Est.[95%CI] p-value
L rACC (Roi174) DMN SomMot_z BPQ-instability ACME -0.93[-1.81,-0.29] < 0.01
ADE 0.233[-0.49,1.047] 0.55
Total -0.70[0.43,3.21] < 0.01
R VS (Roi420) Limbic DMN_z BPQ-self-image ACME -0.51[-0.95,-0.07] 0.03
ADE 0.23[-0.40, 0.80] 0.46
Total -0.28[-0.72,0.18] 0.22
R daINS (Roi307) Sal Strength factor BPQ-instability ACME 0.92[0.04, 1.68] 0.04
ADE 0.05[-0.69, 0.96] 0.91
Total 0.97[0.57, 1.35] <0.01
Note. In all cases, full mediation is signified by a significant ACME (average causal mediation effect) and a
nonsignificant ADE (average direct effect). In this case the strength factor for node 307 denotes the factor
score of a single factor CFA with Vis_z, SomMot_z, DAN_z, Sal_z, FPN_z, and DMN_z as indicators.
77
Appendix B
Figure 1. Summary of group FC and strength distribution. (A) Group differences in overall FC
(functional connectivity/edge weight) for every edge and every subject in addition to nodal
strength centrality distribution. These distributions reflect the FC distribution after applying a
mild consensus threshold. Student’s t-tests between the control and borderline group indicated
that the control group has greater edge weights on average (t = 5.46, p < .0001) and greater
strength centrality (t = 15.18, p < .0001). (B) Age-related changes in FC fit by a quadratic age
model. Results from a linear regression revealed a significant quadratic age x group interaction (t
= -17.96, p < .0001). For visualization purposes, points indicate the mean FC value per subject
along the y-axis
FC strength
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 50 100 150 200
0
500
1000
1500
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
metric
cou
nt
A
40
60
80
100
120
140
15 20 25 30
Age (years)
FC
Group
Control
BPD
B
78
Figure 2. Finalized 421 node parcellation of the cortex, thalamus, and striatum from two
representative slices. Notice the truncation in inferior temporal regions described in the Method
section. We also included bilateral CeM and BLA, which are not depicted here.
79
Figure 3. Results from the usual suspects analyses. Results in the top panel (a-c) are plotted
using the BrainNet Viewer (Xia, Wang, & He, 2013). In the top panel, nodes are labeled in
accordance with the modular structure from (Yeo et al., 2011), with magenta representing
salience network, cream representing the limbic network, and red representing DMN regions.
Magenta edges are results from the social/DMN usual suspects analyses since they were highly
overlapping with salience regions and red edges are significant results from the fronto-limbic
usual suspects analysis due to their concentration on medial prefrontal regions. Top panel
figures are displayed on the medial surface from the right (a) and left (c) in addition to from the
front (b, left = right). The bottom panel depicts age x group interactions between the bilateral VS
and portions of the ACC.
TPJdaINS
Precun
dACC
CeM
pMTS
TPJ/AG
a b c
d e
VSVS
sgACC
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
15 20 25 30
L VS–L dACC (415-177)
Ed
ge e
stim
ate
Age
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
15 20 25 30
Ed
ge e
stim
ate
Age
R VS–L sgACC (420-169)
Group
Control
BPD
80
Figure 4. dACC and VS directed connectivity results. Results from CS-GIMME revealed a
directed edge was present from the left dACC to the left VS and that this edge increased with
age. Since GIMME allows individual paths to be estimated even in the absence of a group-level
edge, two participants from the BPD group are included in the scatterplot.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
15 20 25 30
dA
CC
V
S
beta
est
imate
Age
Group
Control
BPD
x = -3
y = 10
81
Figure 5. Connectivity of the daINS. (A) The right daINS in MNI 152 space. (B) Edge width and
color correspond to the size of t statistic in a between groups comparison. Thus, redder and
thicker edges denote stronger group differences. (C) Affective instability fully mediated the
association between group membership and connectivity of the daINS.
a ective
daINSBPD
instability
strength
0.890* 0.432*
0.111
x =39a b
ca ective
daINS
− 2
− 1
0
1
15 2 0 2 5 30
DA
N_z
Age
Group
Control
BPD
d
82
Figure 6. Connectivity of the TPJ. (A) The right TPJ (Roi295) plotted in MNI 152 space in
addition to group differences in strength centrality (B) and group x age interaction of ALFF (C).
83
Figure 7. Connectivity of the VS. (A) The right VS in MNI 152 space. (B) Age x group
interaction of VS-DMN connectivity (C) Negative self-image fully mediated the association
between group membership and connectivity of the VS and DMN.
− 1
0
1
2
15 20 2 5 30
DM
N_z
Age
BPD
self-image
VS-DMN
0.924* 0.418*
0.204
b
cnegative
Group
Control
BPD
a y =10
84
Figure 8. Representative sampling of nodes that were significantly different between groups
regardless of age in whole-brain analyses. Red panels represent nodes that were hyper-connected
(for centrality analyses) or hyper-active (for ALFF analyses) and blue panels denote hypo-
connected/activated nodes.
85
Figure 9. Representative sampling of nodes that showed significant group x age interactions in
whole-brain analyses. Red panels represent nodes that were hyper-connected (for centrality
analyses) or hyper-active (for ALFF analyses) and blue panels denote hypo-connected/activated
nodes.
L SPL (82)
z = 60
R Precuneus (288)
x = 13
R Mid Frontal Gyrus
(352)
x = 44
L Precuneus (200)
x = -6
0
1
2
15 20 25 30
Betw
eenn
ess
Age
−3
−2
−1
0
1
15 20 25 30
DA
N_z
Age
Group
Control
BPD
R Putamen (419)
y = 9
−1
0
1
15 20 25 30
Sal_
z
Age
2
3
4
5
6
7
15 20 25 30
ALFF
Age
0
1
2
3
15 20 25 30
DM
N_z
Age
− 1
0
1
2
15 20 25 30
FPN
_z
Age
86
Appendix C
Table S1.
Selected lambda for ridge regression
US-FL 0.61
US-S/DMN 109.85
ALFF 32.25
fALFF 10.74
Vis_z 0.001
SomMot_z 6.51
DAN_z 70.02
Sal_z 0.22
Limbic_z 8.28
FPN_z 3.64
DMN_z 7.93
Betweenness 0.003
Strength 1.99
87
Table S2.
MNI center of mass coordinates for a priori analyses
Node x y z Node label Network a priori set
L OFC -12.98 46.50 -21.66 116 Limbic Fronto-limbic
L vmPFC -5.70 54.74 -13.64 168 DMN Fronto-limbic
L sgACC -6.88 34.32 -10.30 169 DMN Fronto-limbic
L mPFC -7.71 58.69 1.60 173 DMN Both
L rACC -7.33 43.64 4.32 174 DMN Both
L rACC -6.45 33.67 21.20 177 DMN Both
L mPFC -5.88 52.76 25.03 178 DMN Both
R OFC 6.26 46.91 -23.98 321 Limbic Fronto-limbic
R dACC 6.37 34.50 26.49 360 FPN Fronto-limbic
R sgACC/vmPFC 3.95 38.90 -12.17 379 DMN Fronto-limbic
R rACC 6.51 41.90 3.48 381 DMN Both
R mPFC 6.07 54.94 9.13 382 DMN Both
R dmPFC 4.90 59.54 26.88 385 DMN Both
L BLA -25.46 -4.66 -21.95 401 Limbic Fronto-limbic
R BLA 25.27 -3.40 -21.83 402 Limbic Fronto-limbic
L CMN -20.13 -6.02 -14.97 403 Limbic Fronto-limbic
R CMN 19.34 -5.04 -15.04 404 Limbic Fronto-limbic
L VS -13.14 11.67 -8.31 415 Limbic Fronto-limbic
R VS 10.58 12.85 -7.88 420 Limbic Fronto-limbic
L vaINS -40.64 2.40 -4.40 98 Sal Social/DMN
L aINS/ IFG -35.12 24.98 -1.21 99 Sal Social/DMN
L daINS -35.42 19.50 7.92 101 Sal Social/DMN
L daINS -38.66 4.78 11.17 102 Sal Social/DMN
L pMTS -54.76 -44.01 5.45 158 DMN Social/DMN
L pSTS -60.98 -49.24 15.83 159 DMN Social/DMN
L TPJ/AG -57.00 -57.50 28.06 163 DMN Social/DMN
L TPJ/AG -43.19 -74.47 42.54 164 DMN Social/DMN
L Precuneus -6.30 -61.18 30.90 195 DMN Social/DMN
L Precuneus -7.54 -52.75 44.37 200 DMN Social/DMN
R TPJ/pSTS 59.12 -48.41 9.77 294 Sal Social/DMN
R TPJ/pSTS 51.54 -43.31 16.94 295 Sal Social/DMN
R vaINS 39.40 6.278 -16.66 302 Sal Social/DMN
R aINS 40.40 9.00 -3.28 303 Sal Social/DMN
R daINS 36.50 22.90 4.06 306 Sal Social/DMN
88
R daINS 37.80 6.76 11.36 307 Sal Social/DMN
R Precuneus 15.30 -63.43 28.64 394 DMN Social/DMN
R Precuneus 4.91 -52.48 24.46 395 DMN Social/DMN
R Precuneus 3.32 -64.13 31.83 396 DMN Social/DMN
89
Table S3.
MNI center of mass coordinates for significant nodes (ALFF and centrality)
Node x y z Node label Network High/low
L Fusiform Gyrus -31.65 -33.25 -17.29 2 Vis low
L Inf Occ Gyrus -26.32 -98.52 -11.38 12 Vis high
L Mid Occ Gyrus -42.89 -88.31 -5.84 14 Vis high
L IPL -24.13 -80.26 44.37 31 Vis low
L Postcentral Gyrus -61.42 -1.54 24.51 43 SomMot low
L Postcentral Gyrus -33.24 -35.87 65.85 60 SomMot high
L IPL -28.41 -72.25 30.88 73 DAN low
L IPL -48.40 -28.83 44.39 76 DAN low
L SPL -15.03 -71.18 59.46 81 DAN low
L SPL -32.51 -59.95 64.39 82 DAN high
L anterior temporal gyrus -46.10 6.00 -16.21 97 Sal high
L daINS -38.66 4.78 11.17 102 Sal high
L daINS -46.76 11.49 1.94 103 Sal high
L OFC -12.98 46.50 -21.66 116 Limbic low
L Temporal Pole -33.93 11.29 -29.12 125 Limbic low
L IPL -31.12 -75.28 42.73 127 FPN low
L vlOFC -44.82 49.03 -8.72 135 FPN low
L IFG -51.51 32.95 9.99 136 FPN low
L dlPFC -42.17 49.35 7.39 137 FPN low
L Inf Precentral Gyrus -41.60 6.63 35.10 141 FPN low
L Precuneus -10.73 -79.30 45.94 144 FPN low
L MTG -64.54 -33.37 6.03 157 DMN low
L Mid Occipital Gyrus -41.44 -81.75 27.92 161 DMN high
L AG -43.19 -74.47 42.54 164 DMN high
L sgACC -6.88 34.32 -10.30 169 DMN high
L rACC -7.33 43.64 4.32 174 DMN low
L Sup Frontal Gyrus -32.30 10.33 59.90 186 DMN high
L Precuneus -7.54 -52.75 44.37 200 DMN low
R Fusiform Gyrus 32.07 -37.39 -22.11 201 Vis low
R Lingual Gyrus 24.77 -54.59 -7.80 205 Vis low
R Lingual Gyrus 21.86 -76.86 -10.18 206 Vis low
R Lingual Gyrus 17.03 -36.01 -12.07 207 Vis low
R ITG 49.27 -65.00 -10.09 209 Vis low
R Cuneus 14.82 -66.30 20.28 224 Vis high
90
R Cuneus 14.09 -88.20 36.86 229 Vis high
R pSTG 60.12 -26.49 12.93 237 SomMot high
R Postcentral Gyrus 47.10 -26.3 58.34 253 SomMot low
R SMA 5.55 -10.19 51.85 254 SomMot low
R Mid Occipital Gyrus 42.08 -78.91 30.29 274 DAN high
R Parieto-occip sulcus 17.17 -80.94 48.68 277 DAN low
R SPL 31.07 -67.03 50.55 280 DAN low
R SPL 20.32 -71.37 51.78 282 DAN low
R Precuneus 13.15 -67.29 64.17 288 DAN low
R pMTS 59.12 -48.41 9.77 294 Sal low
R TPJ 51.54 -43.31 16.94 295 Sal low
R SMG 60.73 -42.86 26.80 296 Sal low
R daINS 37.80 6.76 11.36 307 Sal high
R Inf temporal gyrus 39.11 -14.70 -29.52 328 Limbic low
R IPL 53.47 -42.99 50.50 333 FPN high
R Sup Occipital Gyrus 34.40 -74.21 45.73 334 FPN low
R IPL 44.11 -49.53 47.94 336 FPN high
R vlOFC 40.76 52.44 -9.92 342 FPN low
R Mid Frontal Gyrus 43.49 17.20 45.66 352 FPN high
R Mid OFC 33.44 38.24 -14.09 376 DMN high
R PCC 2.78 -20.38 38.61 398 DMN low
L Thalamus -10.08 -14.09 7.39 406 SomMot high
R Thalamus 9.64 -20.04 10.99 412 DMN low
L VS -13.14 11.67 -8.31 415 Limbic low
R Putamen 24.89 7.51 3.85 419 Sal high
R VS 10.58 12.85 -7.88 420 Limbic low
91
Table S4.
Module-specific dissection of nodal centrality results
Network Metric High Low
Vis (9) Vis_z 1 SomMot_z 2
DAN_z 1 2
Sal_z 1
Limbic_z 2
FPN_z 1
DMN_z 2
Betweenness 1 1
Total 9 5
SomMot (5) Vis_z 1
Limbic_z 2
Betweenness 2
Total 2 3
DAN (2) Sal_z 1
Betweenness 1
Total 2 0
Sal (4) Vis_z 1 1
SomMot_z 1
DAN_z 2 1
Sal_z 1
FPN_z 1 1
DMN_z 2 1
Strength 1
Betweenness 1
Total 9 5
Limbic (4) Limbic_z 1 1
FPN_z 1
DMZ_z 1
Total 1 3
FPN (5) DAN_z 1
Limbic_z 1
FPN_z 1
DMN_z 1 1
92
Total 3 2
DMN (9) Vis_z 1 1
SomMot_z 1
Sal_z 1
Limbic_z 1
FPN_z 1 2
DMN_z 1
Betweenness 2
Strength 1
Total 5 7
93
Table S5.
Module-specific dissection of nodal ALFF results
Network Metric High Low
Vis (2) ALFF 2
Total 0 2
SomMot (1) ALFF 1
Total 1 0
DAN (7) ALFF 7
fALFF 4
Total 0 11
Sal (7) ALFF 4 3
fALFF 1
Total 4 4
Limbic (2) ALFF 1 1
Total 1 1
FPN (6) ALFF 2
fALFF 4
Total 0 6
DMN (1) ALFF 1
Total 1 0
94
Appendix D
Figure S1.
Note. Static pearson correlations of individual adjacency matrices by subject. This was
conducted on the original 84 subjects that passed our excessive motion screen and is simply
meant to demonstrate thinking regarding removal of one subject in the BPD group (who can be
spotted by eye in row/column 20) whose adjacency matrix had an unusually low correlation on
the whole (~.1) with all other subjects in the study and showed divergence measured by the
mahalanobis distance.
95
Figure S2.
Note. Average FC within and between intrinsic networks. Panels represent that we took all edges
from nodes in the corresponding and calculated the average FC value of nodes connecting all
seven networks. As expected, edges going from nodes in an intrinsic network to other nodes
within the network were generally higher than edges going to nodes that were assigned to other
networks.
●●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●
●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Vis SomMot DAN Sal Limbic FPN DMN
FC
(avg
)
Vis
●●●●●●●●●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●
●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●●
●
●●●●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●
●
●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●
●●
●●●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Vis SomMot DAN Sal Limbic FPN DMN
FC
(avg
)
SomMot
●●●●●●●●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●
●
●●●
●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●
●●
●●
●●
●●●●●●●●
●
●
●●●●●●●●
●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●
●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●
0.0
0.2
0.4
Vis SomMot DAN Sal Limbic FPN DMN
FC
(avg
)
DAN
●●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●●●●
●●
●●●
●
●●
●●
● ●●●●●
●●●
●
●
●
●●●
●●●
●●
●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●
●
●
●●●●●●●
●●●
●●●●●●
●●●●●
● ●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
0.0
0.2
0.4
Vis SomMot DAN Sal Limbic FPN DMN
FC
(avg
)
Sal
●
●●
●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●
●●●
●
●
0.000
0.025
0.050
0.075
Vis SomMot DAN Sal Limbic FPN DMN
FC
(avg
)
Limbic
●
●●●●
●●●●●
●
●●●
●
●●●●●●●●
●
●
●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●
●
●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
● ●●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●
●●
●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●
0.0
0.2
0.4
Vis SomMot DAN Sal Limbic FPN DMN
FC
(avg
)
FPN
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●
● ●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●
●●●●●●●
●●●●●●
●●●●
●
●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●
●●●
●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●
●
●●●
●
●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●
●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●
●●
●●●●●
●0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Vis SomMot DAN Sal Limbic FPN DMN
FC
(avg
)
DMN
96
Figure S3.
Note. Age-related changes in global graph metrics.
modularity transitivity
characteristic path length diameter global efficiency
15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30
15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
10
15
20
25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Age (years)
Glo
ba
l m
etr
ic v
alu
e
Group
Control
BPD