Skip to main content
Download PDF

Well-being is associated with cortical thickness network topology of human brain

Behavioral and Brain Functions volume 19, Article number: 16 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Living a happy and meaningful life is an eternal topic in positive psychology, which is crucial for individuals’ physical and mental health as well as social functioning. Well-being can be subdivided into pleasure attainment related hedonic well-being or emotional well-being, and self-actualization related eudaimonic well-being or psychological well-being plus social well-being. Previous studies have mostly focused on human brain morphological and functional mechanisms underlying different dimensions of well-being, but no study explored brain network mechanisms of well-being, especially in terms of topological properties of human brain morphological similarity network.

Methods

Therefore, in the study, we collected 65 datasets including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and well-being data, and constructed human brain morphological network based on morphological distribution similarity of cortical thickness to explore the correlations between topological properties including network efficiency and centrality and different dimensions of well-being.

Results

We found emotional well-being was negatively correlated with betweenness centrality in the visual network but positively correlated with eigenvector centrality in the precentral sulcus, while the total score of well-being was positively correlated with local efficiency in the posterior cingulate cortex of cortical thickness network.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrated that different dimensions of well-being corresponded to different cortical hierarchies: hedonic well-being was involved in more preliminary cognitive processing stages including perceptual and attentional information processing, while hedonic and eudaimonic well-being might share common morphological similarity network mechanisms in the subsequent advanced cognitive processing stages.

Background

Living a happy and meaningful life is a major topic in positive psychology, which have a great impact on individuals’ physical and mental health and help people flourish in their lives, in their communities, and in the world [1,2,3]. Researchers have proved that healthy people with higher levels of well-being tend to have better emotional states, better interpersonal relationships, and stronger senses of belonging to a group [2, 4, 5], thus they were less likely to suffer from mental illnesses [6]. Compared with other models of well-being mostly focusing on emotional (or subjective) aspect of well-being, Keyes [7, 8] developed the mental health continuum model composed of three well-being components: emotional (subjective) well-being, psychological well-being, and social well-being. Specifically, emotional well-being reflect the hedonic aspect of well-being that encompassed pleasure attainment, positive affective states, and high levels of life satisfaction [9]. Psychological well-being and social well-being together are considered as eudaimonic well-being, which refer to the actualization of individuals’ potential or true value and evaluation of one’s circumstance and functioning in society [10, 11]. Previous studies have shown that these three dimensions of well-being were moderately correlated with each other, and they were interrelated but distinct constructs [12,13,14].

Recently, neuroimaging studies have used different experimental approaches to enrich our understanding of both anatomical and functional substrates of different dimensions of well-being and showed a variety of association results [15]. For instance, a result from an electroencephalography study showed that the greater left than right superior frontal activation was associated with the higher levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being [16]. MRI studies revealed many correlations between different dimensions of well-being and human brain structural metrics [e.g., the regional gray matter volume (rGMV) or regional gray matter density (rGMD)]. In more detail, social well-being was correlated with both rGMV in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [17] and rGMD in the left orbitofrontal cortex [18], which were both involved in emotional regulation [19,20,21] and social-cognitive processes [22, 23]. Besides, several other studies reported the associations between emotional well-being and rGMV in the precuneus [24, 25], the rostral anterior cingulate [25, 26] and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [26, 27]; as well as the correlation between psychological well-being and rGMV in the insula [27, 28]. Meanwhile, several resting-state fMRI studies also reported the links between (1) emotional well-being and human brain functional measurements [e.g., regional homogeneity (ReHo) and amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF)] in the prefrontal cortex [28,29,30], subjective well-being and the fractional ALFF in the right precentral gyrus [31], and emotional well-being and resting state functional measurements in the limbic regions including the posterior cingulate cortex [32], the thalamus, the hippocampus, and the amygdala [33]; and between (2) social well-being and ALFF in the temporal gyrus, the limbic regions including the anterior cingulate cortex, the insula and the thalamus [34]. As well as (3) functional connectivity within the limbic network such as the bilateral anterior insula [35], and within the default mode network which was responsible for the internal thoughts concerning selfness as well as memory construction [36,37,38,39] were correlated with well-being [32, 33, 40,41,42,43,44]. Taken together, previous studies mostly concentrated on emotional and social well-being but not examined all the three dimensions of well-being, and there were both distinct and common neural mechanisms in emotional and social well-being [15].

Complex network analysis can be used to characterize human brain connectivity within the whole brain network and enhance our comprehension of human brain network architecture [45, 46]. In this study we used our macro-scale morphological similarity network based on the distributions of cortical thickness [47] to explore the neural mechanisms of the three different dimensions of well-being. Network topology represents the full connection details of a network and can elucidate the complex connectome of the brain network [45, 48, 49]. Recently, researchers have proposed a large number of meaningful local and remote connectivity measurements to quantify the topological properties of complex brain networks based on graph theory [45, 47, 48], of which network centrality and efficiency are two commonly used topological measurements. On one hand, network centrality assesses the functional importance of brain regions and provides us convincing information on how brain regions play crucial roles in promoting functional integration or segregation within the whole brain network [48,49,50]. On the other hand, network efficiency, as a measure of functional integration and segregation, assesses the ability of information transfer within the brain network [51, 52]. In more detail, global efficiency corresponds to long-distance information interaction; nodal efficiency reflects the ability of information transfer in the given region (node) over the whole network and local efficiency reflects the specialization of a single node and functional segregation within the neighbors of a given node [51, 53]. Researchers have applied these topological measurements to investigate brain network topological mechanisms of various behaviors and diseases [47, 49, 54].

In the study, we recruited 67 healthy participants (aged 18–64), who finished structural MRI scanning, followed by the assessments of well-being including emotional, psychological, and social well-being, to explore human brain morphological network topological mechanisms of different dimensions of well-being. We firstly constructed human brain morphological similarity network of cortical thickness for each participant, and then calculated topological properties including network centralities and efficiencies. Human brain morphological similarity network characterized individual regional distribution similarity of morphology. We attempted to answer the following questions: whether there were associations between well-being and human cortical thickness similarity network topology? Did different dimensions of well-being correspond to topological characteristics of different brain regions encoded in cortical thickness similarity network?

Results

Table 1 illustrated detailed information about MHC-SF (the Mental Health Continuum, the Short Form) for the entire group including their average, standard deviation, maximum and minimum. There was no significant correlation between well-being and demographic variables such as age and education. Betweenness centrality reflects the important and bridging roles that connect disparate parts of the network, and we found emotional well-being was negatively correlated with the betweenness centrality in the RH_Vis (the visual network of the right hemisphere) of cortical thickness network (A: r = − 0.4433, corrected p-value = 0.0125, shown in Fig. 1a). Eigenvector centrality indicates a central and important role of the node within the network, and we found emotional well-being was positively correlated with the eigenvector centrality in the RH_DorsAttn_PrCv (the inferior part of the precentral sulcus) of cortical thickness network (B: r = 0.4427, corrected p-value = 0.0127, shown in Fig. 1b). Local efficiency reflects the ability of information transfer within the given brain region, and we found that total score of well-being was positively correlated with local efficiency in the RH_Default_PCC (the precuneus and the dorsal posterior cingulate cortex) of cortical thickness network (C: r = 0.4011, corrected p-value = 0.0477, shown in Fig. 1c), in which the effect sizes of emotional well-being, psychological well-being and social well-being were respectively 0.248, 0.341, and 0.340.

Table 1 Participant information: descriptive statistics and inter-variable correlations
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Brain regions that were significantly correlated with well-being. Betweenness centrality in the RH_Vis of cortical thickness network was negatively correlated with emotional well-being (A: r =  − 0.4433, corrected p-value = 0.0125). Eigenvector centrality in the RH_DorsAttn_PrCv of cortical thickness network was positively correlated with emotional well-being (B: r = 0.4427, corrected p-value = 0.0127). Local efficiency in the RH_Default_PCC of cortical thickness network was positively correlated with total scores of well-being (C: r = 0.4011, corrected p-value = 0.0477)

Full size image

Our results showed that there were associations between well-being and human cortical thickness similarity network topology, and also different dimensions of well-being exhibited both common and different brain mechanisms encoded in cortical thickness similarity network.

Discussion and conclusions

In the study, we applied a novel method to construct human brain morphological similarity network to investigate topological mechanisms of well-being in healthy participants. Compared with temporal synchronism encoded in human brain functional network, our morphological similarity network characterized individual regional distribution similarity of human brain morphology. Our results showed that emotional well-being was significantly correlated with global centrality measurements: negatively correlated with the betweenness centrality in the right visual network but positively correlated with the eigenvector centrality in the right precentral sulcus; total score of well-being was positively correlated with the local efficiency in the right posterior cingulate cortex and the right precuneus of cortical thickness network. We inferred that emotional well-being was involved in more preliminary processing stages including perceptual and attentional information, and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being might share some common morphological network mechanisms in the subsequent advanced cognitive processing stages.

The role of the visual network and the precentral sulcus in emotional well-being

Our results showed that emotional well-being was significantly correlated with global centrality measurements: negatively correlated with the betweenness centrality in the visual network but positively correlated with the eigenvector centrality in the precentral sulcus of cortical thickness network. Emotional well-being, also known as subjective or hedonic well-being, is comprised of two components: an affective component, which refers to positive effects and affect balance; and a cognitive component, which refers to participants’ levels of life satisfaction and cognitive control [7, 9, 55]. Considering the affective component, people with high well-being tended to pay more attention to positive emotional expression [56] while people with low well-being were sensitive to unpleasant feedback and showed impaired attention to adverse results [57]. Considering the cognitive component, researchers proposed people with high or low levels of well-being would apply various cognitive and motivational processing strategies such as perceptional and emotional processing [58]. For instance, people with high well-being had a strong ability of emotional regulation and resilience [56], while people with low well-being were sensitive to negative implications and showed self-focused cognition (rumination) [57].

Accordingly, on one hand, the visual network mainly spans across the visual cortex including the occipital and the lingual gyrus as well as the cuneus. Previous studies demonstrated the cuneus was functionally connected to the visual network and played a role in visual information integration [59], and the lingual gyrus was associated with the fear network [60, 61] and identification of facial emotional expressions [62, 63]. The visual cortex including the occipital cortex was involved in conscious processing [64], processing of uncertain cues [65] as well as perceptual processing [66]. Killgore and Yurgelun-Todd also demonstrated the activations of parts of the visual network were correlated with stress from social interactions [67]. Thus, the negative correlation between betweenness centrality in the visual network and emotional well-being indicated that compared with happy individuals, individuals with low emotional well-being might have a tendency to show more perception and conscious attention to uncertain cues or fear events arousing negative emotions and feelings.

On the other hand, the precentral sulcus is typically segmented into two parts including the superior and the inferior precentral sulcus and these two parts develop independently [68]. Previous studies referred to both regions as the frontal eyes field (FEF) because both of them were activated by saccade tasks [69,70,71]. The inferior precentral sulcus was mainly involved in auditory and visual attention as well as short-time memory [72,73,74]. And the FEF in the precentral sulcus was not only involved in preparing and triggering various eye movements [75,76,77,78] but also in various preliminary cognitive processing including attention orientating and visual awareness [79,80,81,82]. Therefore, the positive correlation between emotional well-being and the eigenvector centrality in the inferior precentral sulcus indicated the central role of the precentral sulcus in enhancing participants’ emotional well-being, and participants with higher emotional well-being might be inclined to pay more perceptual (auditory and visual) attention to dwell about positive implications of events and circumstance to enhance their levels of well-being.

In a summary, our results demonstrated compared to unhappy people, people with high emotional well-being would apply various preliminary cognitive processing strategies such as perception (visual and auditory) processing and attention orientating to more positive feedback and aspects of events, to maintain and enhance their levels of emotional well-being, which was in line with the construct theory of well-being [58].

The role of the precuneus and the posterior cingulate cortex in total score of well-being

We also found total score of well-being was positively correlated with the local efficiency in the RH_Default_PCC [the precuneus and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC)] of cortical thickness network, which was consistent with previous studies [24, 32, 33]. The local efficiency was at the spatial scale of local, compared with the above global measurements associated with emotional well-being. The PCC and the precuneus were parts of the default mode network [83], and they were related to multiple cognitive processing including identification of self and emotional states of others [84], construction of past, present, and future selves [36], autobiographical and retrospective memory [36] as well as self-reflection [85]. In more detail, on the one hand, the PCC was involved in a series of memory-based construction/simulation functions including autobiographical memory, situational future thinking, and scene construction [83]. Previous studies also demonstrated the correlations between impairments of the PCC and the degeneration of scene construction capacity in Alzheimer’s disease [86]. Meanwhile, the PCC was also involved in a series of cognitive processes including emotional processes [87], memory retrieval [88], self-referential [89,90,91] and self-reflection [85]. On the other hand, the precuneus, as a part of the medial posterior parietal cortex, was also involved in an array of cognitive processing including self-related processing [92, 93], conscious information processing [94], episodic memory [95] and visuospatial processing [96]. Previous studies also demonstrated the anatomical and functional abnormalities of the precuneus in various diseases including Alzheimer’s disease [97,98,99], Huntington’s disease [100], and mild cognitive impairment [101,102,103].

Total score of well-being can be subdivided into two dimensions of well-being, hedonic well-being, also known as emotional well-being, and eudaimonic well-being (including psychological and social well-being) [10]. These two dimensions are positively correlated but distinct components [9, 11, 104]. Previous studies have proved that compared to hedonic well-being, people with high eudaimonic well-being tended to spend more time on self-reflection to identify selves’ true value and integrate past, present, as well as future events to maintain and realize their levels of well-being [104, 105]. While people with high hedonic well-being were inclined to focus on positive emotional events [56] and showed less attention to adverse results [57] and would apply multiple cognitive and motivational processing strategies such as self-reflection, perception processing, and emotional processing to maintain their levels of well-being [58]. These characteristics of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were in line with the functions of the precuneus and the PCC in the default mode network mentioned above. We inferred that people with either hedonic or eudaimonic well-being would apply some similar cognitive strategies in subsequent advanced processing procedures possibly for different goals. Thus, the cognitive processes of these two regions reflected both dimensions of well-being in high levels of autonomy, self-acceptance, self-reflection, various memory, scene construction as well as emotional processing in pursuits of positive affect (hedonic well-being) and actualization of one’s potential or true value (eudaimonic well-being) [7, 8].

In conclusion, in the study, we applied a novel method to construct human brain morphological similarity network to explore topological mechanisms of well-being. We confirmed that different dimensions of well-being were associated with human brain morphological similarity network topology at different spatial scales. Our results provided compelling evidence of the ability of information transfer and the central role of the visual network, the precentral sulcus, the precuneus and the posterior cingulate cortex in different dimensions of well-being, which were involved in various cognitive processes. We inferred that emotional well-being was involved in more preliminary processing stages including perceptual and attentional information processing, as well as hedonic and eudaimonic well-being might share some common morphological network mechanisms in the subsequent advanced cognitive processing stages.

Limitations

Several limitations should be taken into consideration: (1) The sample size was small but across a big age span, and the generalizability of its results should be tested in future big sample; (2) Also, well-being was a multifaceted and complex component, and was also related to various brain regions involving subcortical structures. The present study only explored human brain information of cerebral cortex but did not involve the exploration and analysis of subcortical structures; (3) The behavioral data were collected from participants’ self-reports, which were largely influenced by participants’ subjective feelings and emotions. More objective measurements should be applied in future studies.

Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited from local community by advertisements. The initial sample included 67 datasets (32 males and 35 females; mean age = 32.79 ± 13.11; ranged from 18.59 to 64.30). All the participants were invited for a detailed mental health interview using the Mini-International Neuro-Psychiatric Interview and people with a history of or current major neuropsychiatric illness, head injury, alcohol, drug abuse were excluded from the study. We also excluded people with MRI contraindications, including people with implants, pacemakers, brain surgery, current pregnancy, and very recent tattoos. In addition to the MRI scanning, the participants were also assessed with the Short Form of the Mental Health Continuum (Chinese). The final sample included 65 datasets. Participants who were absent from the MRI scanning (n = 1) or didn’t pass the mental health interview (n = 1) were excluded. The institutional review board of the Institute of Psychology Chinese Academy of Sciences approved this study and written informed consent was obtained from participants before data acquisition.

Behavior measurements

The Short Form of the Mental Health Continuum in Chinese (MHC-SF) was applied to measure participants’ well-being. The 14-item version was based on a model comprising three components of well-being [8, 106]: emotional well-being (3 items including positive affects and avowed quality of life), psychological well-being (6 items including self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, positive relations with others, autonomy, and environmental mastery) and social well-being (5 items including social contribution, social integration, social actualization, social acceptance, and social coherence). It includes items like, “I feel happy” (Emotional well-being), “I like most parts of my personality” (Psychological well-being), “I feel close to other people in my community” (Social well-being). Participants were asked to respond on which ‘1’ represented ‘never’ and ‘6’ represented ‘every day’ in the item according to the frequency of experiencing various symptoms of well-being in the past month. The scores of each dimension were calculated by summing the scores of the items belonging to them. Higher scores indicate higher levels of well-being. The Chinese version has high reliability and validity, via a 6-point scale for all items and describes the frequency of experiencing various symptoms of well-being [107]. The Cronbach’s α coefficient in the present study was 0.944.

Imaging acquisition

All the MRI images were collected on a GE 3.0 T scanner (Discovery MR750) at the Institute of Psychology Chinese Academy of Sciences. Participants completed a T1-weighted structural MRI scan (eyes closed) with a magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) sequence with the following parameters: repetition time (TR) = 6.652ms, echo time (TE) = 2.928ms, inversion time (T1) = 450ms, flip angle (FA) = 12°, field of view = 256 × 256 mm2 and acquisition matrix = 256 × 256, slice thickness = 1.0mm, 192 sagittal slices, voxel size = 1 × 1 × 1 mm3.

Imaging data preprocessing

MRI images were preprocessed by the Connectome Computation System (CCS) (http://github.com/zuoxinian/CCS), which was developed by our laboratory [108] integrating several software including AFNI [109] (Analysis of Functional NeuroImages), FSL [110] (fMRI Software Library), and FreeSurfer [111]. The CCS pipelines were employed to preprocess all individual structural images as well as quality control [108, 112]. The structural images preprocessing included (1) noise removal and brain extraction (skull stripping) using volBrain automated volumetry system (http://volbrain.upv.es) [113]; (2) image intensity inhomogeneity correction; (3) tissue segmentation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), white matter (WM) and deep gray matter (GM); (4) generation of the GM-WM (white surface) and GM-CSF interface (pial surface); (5) spatial registration via matching of the cortical folding patterns across participants by recon-all in FreeSurfer and Gaussian spatial smoothing (FWHM = 6mm, Full Width at Half Maxima); (6) Finally, the 3D (dimensional) structure images were projected onto the fsaverage5 standard cortical surface with 10,242 vertices per hemisphere.

Quality control procedure

Quality control is very significant for solid data analysis. The CCS provided quality control procedures for both functional and structural images. For structural MRI in this study, the quality control procedure (QCP) was as follows: (1) brain extraction or skull stripping; (2) image tissue segmentation; (3) reconstruction of pial and white surface; and (4) head motion. We performed the visual inspection on all the original structural images and excluded participants with obvious structural brain abnormalities and significant motor artifacts during the scan. The CCS provides screenshots of the brain tissue segmentation as well as screenshots of pial and white surface reconstruction. We visually checked the screenshots, and participants with bad brain tissue segmentation and surface reconstruction were excluded from the subsequent analysis. All the participants passed the quality control. The final sample included 65 participants and their descriptive information and inter-variable correlations were shown in Table 1.

Morphological similarity network construction

In the study, we used a macro-scale brain network parcellation, which subdivided the entire cortical surface into 51 spatially connected parcels which were derived from a clustering approach on MRI images of 1000 subjects to identify networks of functionally coupled regions across the cerebral cortex [114], to construct human brain morphological network based on their distributions, and then we calculated mean cortical thickness of each parcel. We excluded the parcels whose vertex number was less than 50, and finally got 32 parcels reserved for final group analysis: expanding across all the Yeo-7 networks: visual network, somatomotor network, dorsal attention network, ventral attention network, limbic network, frontoparietal (control) network, and default mode network (see Table 2).

Table 2 The vertex number of reserved 32 brain regions
Full size table

As in our previous study [47], we estimated distribution similarity of cortical thickness for each pair of parcels to construct human brain morphological similarity network. Firstly, for each pair of parcels, we segmented both of their cortical thickness into 30 bins. Secondly, we calculated the vertex frequency for each bin of the two parcels, and then we got the frequency distribution histogram for each parcel. Finally, we computed the Pearson’s correlation to estimate the similarity of cortical thickness distribution, and then we obtained a 32 × 32 morphological correlation matrix for each participant. There were both positive and negative connections between different brain regions which respectively demonstrated co-varying and anti-correlated distribution curves, and the negative connections only occupied a tiny proportion of the entire connection matrix. Therefore, in the study, we considered the absolute values of connections to computing network topological measurements considering the little effects of negative connections on the whole brain network topology. Then, we used orthogonal minimal spanning trees (OMST) analysis, which was a threshold-free method to derive the strongest connections of a network and reserve important information about brain network organization [115], to get an undirected weighted graph, and then the topological measurements could be computed based on the binary (unweighted) correlation matrix.

Topological measurements

We computed network efficiency including global efficiency (Eglob), nodal efficiency (Enodal) and local efficiency (Elocal) as well as network centrality including degree centrality (DC), betweenness centrality (BC), eigenvector centrality (EC) and pagerank centrality (PC) based on the binary (unweighted) correlation matrix using the Brain Connectivity Toolbox (http://www.brain-connectivity-toolbox.net) [48] and the CCS scripts [108].

Network efficiency

Global efficiency for network G is defined as:

$${E}_{glob}\left(G\right)=\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{i,j,i\ne j\in G}\frac{1}{{L}_{ij}}$$
(1)

where N is the number of nodes and Lij is the shortest path length between node i and node j in graph G [52]. Global efficiency is a global measurement of the parallel ability of information transfer within the whole network.

Nodal efficiency of node i is defined as:

$${E}_{nodal}(i)=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{j,i\ne j\in G}\frac{1}{{L}_{ij}}$$
(2)

where N and Lij are the same as that in Eq. (1), respectively representing the number of nodes and the shortest path length between node i and node j in graph G. Nodal efficiency measures the ability of the node for information transfer within the whole network and is also a global measurement.

Local efficiency of node i is defined as:

$${E}_{local}(i)={E}_{glob}\left({G}_{i}\right)$$
(3)

where Gi is a subgraph and is composed of the nodes that connect to node i (not including node i) directly and interconnected edges. Local efficiency indicates how well the information is exchanged in the given brain region and hence is a local measurement.

Network centrality

Degree centrality of node i is defined as:

$$DC\left(i\right)=\sum_{j\in N}{a}_{ij}$$
(4)

where N is the set of all nodes in the network, and aij is the connection status between i and j: aij = 1 when i and j were connected and aij = 0 when i and j weren’t connected. DC identifies the nodes with the most connected links and is the most common quantifiable local centrality measure [48, 49, 116].

Betweenness centrality of node i is defined as:

$$BC\left(i\right)=\sum_{k,j\in N, k\ne j,k\ne i,i\ne j}\frac{{L}_{kj}(i)}{{L}_{kj}}$$
(5)

where Lkj is the number of shortest paths between node k and node j, and Lkj(i) is the number of shortest paths between k and j that pass through node i. BC represents the fraction of all shortest paths in the network that pass through a given node. High BC indicated the nodes were important in connecting disparate parts of the network [48, 117] and were global measuremens.

Eigenvector centrality of node i is defined as:

$$EC\left( i \right) = \mu_1 \left( i \right) = \frac{1}{\lambda_1 }\mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1}^N a_{ij} \mu_1 (j)$$
(6)

where \({\mu }_{j}\left(i\right)\) is the i-th component of the j-th eigenvector of the adjacency matrix aij, and \({\lambda }_{1}\) is the corresponding j-th eigenvalue. N is the set of all nodes in the network, and aij is the connection matrix. EC considers the nodes connecting to other high degree nodes as highly central and indicates a central and important role of the node in the network [118, 119].

Pagerank centrality of node i is defined as:

$$PC\left( i \right) = r\left( i \right) = 1 - d + d\mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1}^N \frac{{a_{ij} r(j)}}{DC(j)}.$$
(7)

Pagerank centrality was introduced originally by Google to rank web pages. In graph theory, PC represents the importance of nodes assuming that the importance of a node is the expected sum of the importance of all connected nodes and the direction of edges [120, 121]. The PC algorithm is a variant of EC, which introduces a small probability (1—d = 0.15, d is damping factor) of random damping to handle walking traps on a graph [122]. Both EC and PC are global centrality measurements.

Statistics

To investigate the associations between topological measurements (i.e., network efficiency Effi and centrality Cent) of human brain morphological similarity network and different dimensions of well-being, we applied general linear model that took age, sex, education, intracranial volume (ICV), mean cortical thickness (CT) as covariates. The detailed statistical model was shown in Eq. (8).

$$Well-being\,=\, {\alpha }_{1}\times age+{\alpha }_{2}\times sex+{\alpha }_{3}\times education+{\alpha }_{4}\times ICV+{\alpha }_{5}\times {CT}_{mean}+\beta \times Effi/Cent+\gamma$$
(8)

False discovery rate (FDR, q < 0.05) correction for 32 parcels was used to control type 1 error over multiple tests. And the General Linear Model statistical analysis and FDR correction were performed using MATLAB scripts in the study.

Availability of data and materials

https://github.com/stronger202203/HumanBrainNetworkTopology.

References

  1. Huta V, Waterman AS. Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. J Happiness Stud. 2013;15(6):1425–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychol Bull. 2005;131(6):803–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):141–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Diener E, Seligman MEP. Very happy people. Psychol Sci. 2002;13(1):81–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Steptoe A, Wardle J, Marmot M. Positive affect and health-related neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, and inflammatory processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(18):6508–12. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409174102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Bhullar N, Rooke SE. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Pers Indiv Differ. 2007;42(6):921–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Keyes CLM. Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing—a complementary strategy for improving national mental health. Am Psychol. 2007;62(2):95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.2.95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Keyes C. Brief description of the mental health continuum short form (MHC-SF). 2009. Available online at: https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/MHC-SFEnglish.pdf.

  9. Diener E, Oishi S, Lucas RE. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54(1):403–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Keyes C. Social well-being. Soc Psychol Q. 1998;61(2):121–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):719–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Diener E. Assessing subjective well-being: progress and opportunities. Soc Indic Res. 1994;31(2):103–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gallagher MW, Lopez SJ, Preacher KJ. The hierarchical structure of well-being. J Pers. 2009;77(4):1025–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00573.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lamers SMA, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET, ten Klooster PM, Keyes CLM. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). J Clin Psychol. 2011;67(1):99–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Vries LP, van de Weijer MP, Bartels M. A systematic review of the neural correlates of well-being reveals no consistent associations. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023;145:105036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Urry HL, Nitschke JB, Dolski I, Jackson DC, Dalton KM, Mueller CJ, et al. Making a life worth living: neural correlates of well-being. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(6):367–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00686.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kong F, Hu S, Xue S, Song Y, Liu J. Extraversion mediates the relationship between structural variations in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and social well-being. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2015;105:269–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kong F, Yang K, Sajjad S, Yan W, Li X, Zhao J. Neural correlates of social well-being: gray matter density in the orbitofrontal cortex predicts social well-being in emerging adulthood. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2019;14(3):319–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldin PR, McRae K, Ramel W, Gross JJ. The neural bases of emotion regulation: reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biol Psychiat (1969). 2008;63(6):577–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Golkar A, Lonsdorf TB, Olsson A, Lindstrom KM, Berrebi J, Fransson P, et al. Distinct contributions of the dorsolateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex during emotion regulation. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e48107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kanske P, Heissler J, Schönfelder S, Bongers A, Wessa M. How to regulate emotion? Neural networks for reappraisal and distraction. Cereb Cortex (New York, NY 1991). 2011;21(6):1379–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Omar R, Henley SMD, Bartlett JW, Hailstone JC, Gordon E, Sauter DA, et al. The structural neuroanatomy of music emotion recognition: evidence from frontotemporal lobar degeneration. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2011;56(3):1814–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Skuse DH, Gallagher L. Dopaminergic-neuropeptide interactions in the social brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;13(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sato W, Kochiyama T, Uono S, Kubota Y, Sawada R, Yoshimura S, et al. The structural neural substrate of subjective happiness. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):16891. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16891.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Matsunaga M, Kawamichi H, Koike T, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Takahashi HK, et al. Structural and functional associations of the rostral anterior cingulate cortex with subjective happiness. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2016;134:132–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Takeuchi H, Taki Y, Nouchi R, Hashizume H, Sassa Y, Sekiguchi A, et al. Anatomical correlates of quality of life: evidence from voxel-based morphometry. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014;35(5):1834–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lewis GJ, Kanai R, Rees G, Bates TC. Neural correlates of the ‘good life’: eudaimonic well-being is associated with insular cortex volume. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014;9(5):615–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kong F, Hu S, Wang X, Song Y, Liu J. Neural correlates of the happy life: the amplitude of spontaneous low frequency fluctuations predicts subjective well-being. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2015;107:136–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kong F, Wang X, Song Y, Liu J. Brain regions involved in dispositional mindfulness during resting state and their relation with well-being. Soc Neurosci. 2016;11(4):331–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1092469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kong F, Ma X, You X, Xiang Y. The resilient brain: psychological resilience mediates the effect of amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations in orbitofrontal cortex on subjective well-being in young healthy adults. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2018;13(7):755–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/SCAN/NSY045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Xiang G, Li Q, Du X, Liu X, Liu Y, Chen H. Knowing who you are: neural correlates of self-concept clarity and happiness. Neuroscience. 2022;490:264–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2022.03.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ren Z, Shi L, Wei D, Qiu J. Brain functional basis of subjective well-being during negative facial emotion processing task-based fMRI. Neuroscience. 2019;423:177–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.10.017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Luo Y, Huang X, Yang Z, Li B, Liu J, Wei D. Regional homogeneity of intrinsic brain activity in happy and unhappy individuals. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e85181. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085181.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kong F, Xue S, Wang X. Amplitude of low frequency fluctuations during resting state predicts social well-being. Biol Psychol. 2016;118:161–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.05.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Won J, Nielson KA, Smith JC. Subjective well-being and bilateral anterior insula functional connectivity after exercise intervention in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:834816. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.834816.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Barrett LF, Satpute AB. Large-scale brain networks in affective and social neuroscience: towards an integrative functional architecture of the brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(3):361–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.12.012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Cavanna AE, Trimble MR. The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain (London, England: 1878). 2006;129(3):564–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gerlach KD, Spreng RN, Madore KP, Schacter DL. Future planning: default network activity couples with frontoparietal control network and reward-processing regions during process and outcome simulations. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014;9(12):1942–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Spreng RN, Stevens WD, Chamberlain JP, Gilmore AW, Schacter DL. Default network activity, coupled with the frontoparietal control network, supports goal-directed cognition. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2010;53(1):303–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kringelbach ML, Berridge KC. Towards a functional neuroanatomy of pleasure and happiness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13(11):479–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Luo Y, Kong F, Qi S, You X, Huang X. Resting-state functional connectivity of the default mode network associated with happiness. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016;11(3):516–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shi L, Sun J, Wu X, Wei D, Chen Q, Yang W, et al. Brain networks of happiness: dynamic functional connectivity among the default, cognitive and salience networks relates to subjective well-being. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2018;13(8):851–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy059.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Waytz A, Hershfield HE, Tamir DI. Mental simulation and meaning in life. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;108(2):336–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038322.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Weathersby FL, King JB, Fox JC, Loret A, Anderson JS. Functional connectivity of emotional well-being: overconnectivity between default and attentional networks is associated with attitudes of anger and aggression. Psychiat Res-Neuroim. 2019;291:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2019.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(3):186–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2575.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sporns O. The human connectome: a complex network. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1224(1):109–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05888.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Li C, Qiao K, Mu Y, Jiang L. Large-scale morphological network efficiency of human brain: cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13:605158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.605158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Rubinov M, Sporns O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Neuroimage. 2010;52(3):1059–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zuo XN, Ehmke R, Mennes M, Imperati D, Castellanos FX, Sporns O, et al. Network centrality in the human functional connectome. Cereb Cortex. 2012;22(8):1862–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Joyce KE, Laurienti PJ, Burdette JH, Hayasaka S. A new measure of centrality for brain networks. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(8):e12200. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Latora V, Marchiori M. Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys Rev Lett. 2001;87(19):198701/4-4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.198701.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Latora V, Marchiori M. Economic small-world behavior in weighted networks. EPJ B Condens Matter Phys. 2003;32(2):249–63. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2003-00095-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bullmore E, Sporns O. The economy of brain network organization. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(5):336–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wheelock MD, Rangaprakash D, Harnett NG, Wood KH, Orem TR, Mrug S, et al. Psychosocial stress reactivity is associated with decreased whole-brain network efficiency and increased amygdala centrality. Behav Neurosci. 2018;132(6):561–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/bne0000276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tang G-Q, Huang M-E. Diverse consequences of negative emotional responses between high and low happiness people. Acta Psychol Sin. 2012;44(8):1086–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lyubomirsky S, Boehm JK, Kasri F, Zehm K. The cognitive and hedonic costs of dwelling on achievement-related negative experiences: implications for enduring happiness and unhappiness. Emotion (Washington). 2011;11(5):1152–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lyubomirsky S. Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):239–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.239.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tomasi D, Volkow ND. Association between functional connectivity hubs and brain networks. Cereb Cortex (New York, NY 1991). 2011;21(9):2003–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Carlson JM, Reinke KS, Habib R. A left amygdala mediated network for rapid orienting to masked fearful faces. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(5):1386–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lai C-H, Hsu Y-Y, Wu Y-T. First episode drug-naïve major depressive disorder with panic disorder: gray matter deficits in limbic and default network structures. Eur Neuropsychopharm. 2010;20(10):676–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2010.06.002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Keightley ML, Chiew KS, Winocur G, Grady CL. Age-related differences in brain activity underlying identification of emotional expressions in faces. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2007;2(4):292–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Kitada R, Johnsrude IS, Kochiyama T, Lederman SJ. Brain networks involved in haptic and visual identification of facial expressions of emotion: an fMRI study. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2010;49(2):1677–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schwarzkopf DS, Song C, Rees G. The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(1):28–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2706.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang M, Ma C, Luo Y, Li J, Li Q, Liu Y, et al. Neural basis of uncertain cue processing in trait anxiety. Sci Rep-UK. 2016;6(1):21298. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Yang X, Liu J, Meng Y, Xia M, Cui Z, Wu X, et al. Network analysis reveals disrupted functional brain circuitry in drug-naive social anxiety disorder. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2019;190:213–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Killgore WDS, Yurgelun-Todd DA. Social anxiety predicts amygdala activation in adolescents viewing fearful faces. NeuroReport. 2005;16(15):1671–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000180143.99267.bd.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Derrfuss J, Vogt VL, Fiebach CJ, von Cramon DY, Tittgemeyer M. Functional organization of the left inferior precentral sulcus: dissociating the inferior frontal eye field and the inferior frontal junction. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2012;59(4):3829–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.051.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Berman RA, Colby CL, Genovese CR, Voyvodic JT, Luna B, Thulborn KR, et al. Cortical networks subserving pursuit and saccadic eye movements in humans: an FMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp. 1999;8(4):209–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)8:4%3c209::AID-HBM5%3e3.0.CO;2-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Luna B, Thulborn KR, Strojwas MH, McCurtain BJ, Berman RA, Genovese CR, et al. Dorsal cortical regions subserving visually guided saccades in humans: an fMRI study. Cereb Cortex (New York, NY 1991). 1998;8(1):40–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/8.1.40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Petit L, Orssaud C, Tzourio N, Crivello F, Berthoz A, Mazoyer B, et al. Functional anatomy of a prelearned sequence of horizontal saccades in humans. J Neurosci. 1996;16(11):3714–26. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.16-11-03714.1996.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Fusser F, Linden DEJ, Rahm B, Hampel H, Haenschel C, Mayer JS. Common capacity-limited neural mechanisms of selective attention and spatial working memory encoding. Eur J Neurosci. 2011;34(5):827–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07794.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Hagler DJ, Sereno MI. Spatial maps in frontal and prefrontal cortex. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2006;29(2):567–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Noyce AL, Cestero N, Michalka SW, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Somers DC. Sensory-biased and multiple-demand processing in human lateral frontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2017;37(36):8755–66. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0660-17.2017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Jaun-Frutiger K, Cazzoli D, Müri RM, Bassetti CL, Nyffeler T. The frontal eye field is involved in visual vector inversion in humans—a theta burst stimulation study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):83297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083297.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Nagel M, Sprenger A, Lencer R, Kömpf D, Siebner H, Heide W. Distributed representations of the “preparatory set” in the frontal oculomotor system: a TMS study. BMC Neurosci. 2008;9(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-9-89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Nyffeler T, Bucher O, Pflugshaupt T, Von Wartburg R, Wurtz P, Hess CW, et al. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over the frontal eye field can facilitate and inhibit saccade triggering. Eur J Neurosci. 2004;20(8):2240–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03667.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Yang Q, Kapoula Z. Distinct control of initiation and metrics of memory-guided saccades and vergence by the FEF: a TMS study. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(5):e20322. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020322.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Grosbras M-H, Laird AR, Paus T. Cortical regions involved in eye movements, shifts of attention, and gaze perception. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25(1):140–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20145.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Muggleton NG, Juan C-H, Cowey A, Walsh V. Human frontal eye fields and visual search. J Neurophysiol. 2003;89(6):3340–3. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01086.2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Quentin R, Chanes L, Migliaccio R, Valabrègue R, Valero-Cabré A. Fronto-tectal white matter connectivity mediates facilitatory effects of non-invasive neurostimulation on visual detection. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2013;82:344–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Smith DT, Jackson SR, Rorden C. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left human frontal eye fields eliminates the cost of invalid endogenous cues. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(9):1288–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Andrews-Hanna JR, Reidler JS, Sepulcre J, Poulin R, Buckner RL. Functional-anatomic fractionation of the brain’s default network. Neuron (Cambridge). 2010;65(4):550–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.02.005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Andrews-Hanna JR, Smallwood J, Spreng RN. The default network and self-generated thought: component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance: the brain’s default network. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1316(1):29–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Utevsky AV, Smith DV, Huettel SA. Precuneus is a functional core of the default-mode network. J Neurosci. 2014;34(3):932–40. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4227-13.2014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Irish M, Halena S, Kamminga J, Tu S, Hornberger M, Hodges JR. Scene construction impairments in Alzheimer’s disease—a unique role for the posterior cingulate cortex. Cortex. 2015;73:10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.08.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Maddock RJ, Garrett AS, Buonocore MH. Posterior cingulate cortex activation by emotional words: fMRI evidence from a valence decision task. Hum Brain Mapp. 2003;18(1):30–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10075.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Wagner AD, Shannon BJ, Kahn I, Buckner RL. Parietal lobe contributions to episodic memory retrieval. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9(9):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Abraham A, Schubotz RI, von Cramon DY. Thinking about the future versus the past in personal and non-personal contexts. Brain Res. 2008;1233:106–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.084.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Maddock RJ, Garrett AS, Buonocore MH. Remembering familiar people: the posterior cingulate cortex and autobiographical memory retrieval. Neuroscience. 2001;104(3):667–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4522(01)00108-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Northoff G, Bermpohl F. Cortical midline structures and the self. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8(3):102–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kjaer TW, Nowak M, Lou HC. Reflective self-awareness and conscious states: PET evidence for a common midline parietofrontal core. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2002;17(2):1080–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(02)91230-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Lou HC, Luber B, Crupain M, Keenan JP, Nowak M, Kjaer TW, et al. Parietal cortex and representation of the mental self. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(17):6827–32. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400049101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Kjaer TW, Nowak M, Kjaer KW, Lou AR, Lou HC. Precuneus-prefrontal activity during awareness of visual verbal stimuli. Conscious Cogn. 2001;10(3):356–65. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2001.0509.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Dörfel D, Werner A, Schaefer M, von Kummer R, Karl A. Distinct brain networks in recognition memory share a defined region in the precuneus—a functional connectivity study. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2009;47:S53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(09)70164-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wenderoth N, Debaere F, Sunaert S, Swinnen SP. The role of anterior cingulate cortex and precuneus in the coordination of motor behaviour. Eur J Neurosci. 2005;22(1):235–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04176.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Dickerson BC, Sperling RA. Large-scale functional brain network abnormalities in Alzheimer’s disease: insights from functional neuroimaging. Behav Neurol. 2009;21(1–2):63–75. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/610392.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Miners JS, Palmer JC, Love S. Pathophysiology of hypoperfusion of the precuneus in early Alzheimer’s disease: hypoperfusion of precuneus in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Pathol (Zurich). 2016;26(4):533–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bpa.12331.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Ryu S-Y, Kwon MJ, Lee S-B, Yang DW, Kim T-W, Song I-U, et al. Measurement of precuneal and hippocampal volumes using magnetic resonance volumetry in Alzheimer’s disease. J Clin Neurol (Seoul). 2010;6(4):196–203. https://doi.org/10.3988/jcn.2010.6.4.196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Rosas HD, Salat DH, Lee SY, Zaleta AK, Pappu V, Fischl B, et al. Cerebral cortex and the clinical expression of Huntington’s disease: complexity and heterogeneity. Brain (London, England: 1878). 2008;131(4):1057–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Bailly M, Destrieux C, Hommet C, Mondon K, Cottier J-P, Beaufils E, et al. Precuneus and cingulate cortex atrophy and hypometabolism in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: MRI and 18F-FDG PET quantitative analysis using freesurfer. Biomed Res Int. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/583931.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Dai W, Lopez OL, Carmichael OT, Becker JT, Kuller LH, Gach HM. Mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer disease: patterns of altered cerebral blood flow at MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;250(3):856–66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2503080751.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Matsuda H. The role of neuroimaging in mild cognitive impairment. Neuropathology. 2007;27(6):570–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1789.2007.00794.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Aaker JL, Garbinsky EN. Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. J Posit Psychol. 2013;8(6):505–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Huta V. Linking peoples’ Pursuit of eudaimonia and hedonia with characteristics of their parents: parenting styles, verbally endorsed values, and role modeling. J Happiness Stud. 2011;13(1):47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9249-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Keyes CLM. Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(3):539–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Yin K, He J. Reliability and validity of the mental health continuum short form in adults. Chin Mental Health J. 2012;26(5):388–92.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Xu T, Yang Z, Jiang L, Xing X-X, Zuo X-N. A connectome computation system for discovery science of brain. Sci Bull. 2015;60(1):86–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-014-0698-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Cox RW. AFNI: what a long strange trip it’s been. Neuroimage. 2012;62(2):743–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Smith SM. FSL. Neuroimage. 2012;62(2):782–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Fischl B. FreeSurfer. Neuroimage. 2012;62(2):774–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Zuo X-N, Xu T, Jiang L, Yang Z, Cao X-Y, He Y, et al. Toward reliable characterization of functional homogeneity in the human brain: preprocessing, scan duration, imaging resolution and computational space. NeuroImage (Orlando). 2013;65:374–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Manjon JV, Coupe P. Volbrain: an online MRI brain volumetry system. Front Neuroinform. 2016;10:30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2016.00030.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Yeo BT, Krienen FM, Sepulcre J, Sabuncu MR, Lashkari D, Hollinshead M, et al. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol. 2011;106(3):1125–65. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00338.2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Dimitriadis SI, Salis C, Tarnanas I, Linden DE. Topological filtering of dynamic functional brain networks unfolds informative chronnectomics: a novel data-driven thresholding scheme based on orthogonal minimal spanning trees (OMSTs). Front Neuroinform. 2017;11:28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2017.00028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Sabidussi G. The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika. 1966;31(4):581–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw. 1979;1(3):215–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. van Duinkerken E, Schoonheim MMI, Jzerman RG, Moll AC, Landeira-Fernandez J, Klein M, et al. Altered eigenvector centrality is related to local resting-state network functional connectivity in patients with longstanding type 1 diabetes mellitus. Hum Brain Mapp. 2017;38(7):3623–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23617.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Bonacich P. Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. J Math Sociol. 1972;2(1):113–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1972.9989806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Gleich DF. PageRank beyond the web. SIAM Rev. 2015;57(3):321–63. https://doi.org/10.1137/140976649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Henni K, Mezghani N, Gouin-Vallerand C. Unsupervised graph-based feature selection via subspace and pagerank centrality. Expert Syst Appl. 2018;114:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Boldi P, Santini M, Vigna S. PageRank: functional dependencies. ACM Trans Inform Syst. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629096.1629097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11674388).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 16 Lincui Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, China

    Yubin Li, Chunlin Li & Lili Jiang

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shijingshan, Beijing, China

    Yubin Li, Chunlin Li & Lili Jiang

Authors
  1. Yubin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chunlin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lili Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and Funding acquisition: LJ; Methodology, Software and Visualization: YL, CL and LJ; Writing, review and editing: YL, LJ and CL.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lili Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The institutional review board of the Institute of Psychology Chinese Academy of Sciences approved this study, and written informed consent was obtained from individual participants prior to data acquisition.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Li, C. & Jiang, L. Well-being is associated with cortical thickness network topology of human brain. Behav Brain Funct 19, 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12993-023-00219-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12993-023-00219-6

Keywords

Behavioral and Brain Functions

ISSN: 1744-9081

Contact us