Abstract

Dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) captures temporal variations in brain network interactions, offering deeper insights into cognitive processes compared to static connectivity measures. This study proposes a novel framework for classifying different learning strategies—control, active, and passive—using resting-state electroencephalography (EEG). Resting-state EEG data from twenty-one participants were preprocessed and analyzed using the Phase Lag Index (PLI) to compute functional connectivity across 18 EEG channels. Dynamic connectivity matrices were generated using sliding-window correlations, and their upper-triangular elements were vectorized to obtain subject-specific dFC features. Euclidean distance and multidimensional scaling (MDS) were applied for dimensionality reduction before classification. Statistical analyses, including paired and Welch’s t-tests with Bonferroni correction, revealed significant within- and between-group differences (p < 10⁻⁸). Machine learning models—K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) and Random Forest (RF)—achieved classification accuracies exceeding 80% and 70%, respectively, in distinguishing both within- and between-group patterns. These findings demonstrate that dFC features from resting-state EEG can effectively differentiate learning strategies, reflecting distinct neural reorganization patterns associated with cognitive engagement. The proposed framework provides a foundation for exploring EEG-based biomarkers of cognitive processes and potential applications in educational neuroscience and clinical diagnostics.

References

• Allen, E. A., Damaraju, E., Eichele, T., Wu, L., & Calhoun, V. D. (2018). EEG signatures of dynamic functional network connectivity states. Brain topography, 31(1), 101-116.
• Chang, C., & Glover, G. H. (2010). Time–frequency dynamics of resting-state brain connectivity measured with fMRI. Neuroimage, 50(1), 81-98.
• Sakoğlu, Ü., Pearlson, G. D., Kiehl, K. A., Wang, Y. M., Michael, A. M., & Calhoun, V. D. (2010). A method for evaluating dynamic functional network connectivity and task-modulation: application to schizophrenia. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 23(5), 351-366.
• Gonzalez-Castillo, J., Handwerker, D. A., Robinson, M. E., Hoy, C. W., Buchanan, L. C., Saad, Z. S., & Bandettini, P. A. (2014). The spatial structure of resting state connectivity stability on the scale of minutes. Frontiers in neuroscience, 8, 138.
• Keilholz, S. D., Magnuson, M. E., Pan, W. J., Willis, M., & Thompson, G. J. (2013). Dynamic properties of functional connectivity in the rodent. Brain connectivity, 3(1), 31-40.
• Chen, C., Xu, S., Zhou, J., Yi, C., Yu, L., Yao, D., ... & Xu, P. (2025). Resting-state EEG network variability predicts individual working memory behavior. NeuroImage, 310, 121120.
• Zhang, D. W., Zaphf, A., & Klingberg, T. (2021). Resting state EEG related to mathematical improvement after spatial training in children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 698367.
• Godfrey, K., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., Stinear, C. M., & Hoeh, N. R. (2024). Resting-state EEG connectivity recorded before and after rTMS treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 338, 111767.
• Chen, H., Lei, Y., Li, R., Xia, X., Cui, N., Chen, X., ... & Zhou, J. (2024). Resting-state EEG dynamic functional connectivity distinguishes non-psychotic major depression, psychotic major depression and schizophrenia. Molecular Psychiatry, 29(4), 1088-1098.
• Gschwandtner, U., Bogaarts, G., Chaturvedi, M., Hatz, F., Meyer, A., Fuhr, P., & Roth, V. (2021). Dynamic Functional Connectivity of EEG: From Identifying Fingerprints to Gender Differences to a General Blueprint for the Brain's Functional Organization. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 683633.
• Mishra, S., Srinivasan, N., & Tiwary, U. S. (2022). Dynamic functional connectivity of emotion processing in beta band with naturalistic emotion stimuli. Brain sciences, 12(8), 1106.
• Paloma Victoria de Sales Alves, Antonio Simeão Sobrinho Neto, and Carla Alexandra da Silva Moita Minervino (2025). Resting-state EEG before and after different study methods. OpenNeuro. [Dataset] doi: doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006801.v1.0.0
• Widmann, A., Schröger, E., & Maess, B. (2015). Digital filter design for electrophysiological data–a practical approach. Journal of neuroscience methods, 250, 34-46.
• Chella, F., Pizzella, V., Zappasodi, F., & Marzetti, L. (2016). Impact of the reference choice on scalp EEG connectivity estimation. Journal of neural engineering, 13(3), 036016.
• Jung, T. P., Makeig, S., Humphries, C., Lee, T. W., Mckeown, M. J., Iragui, V., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology, 37(2), 163-178.
• Stam, C. J., Nolte, G., & Daffertshofer, A. (2007). Phase lag index: assessment of functional connectivity from multi channel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources. Human brain mapping, 28(11), 1178-1193.
• Kschischang, F. R. (2006). The hilbert transform. University of Toronto, 83, 277.
• Long, Z., Liu, X., Niu, Y., Shang, H., Lu, H., Zhang, J., & Yao, L. (2023). Improved dynamic functional connectivity estimation with an alternating hidden Markov model. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 17(5), 1381-1398.
• Dodero, L., Sona, D., Meskaldji, D. E., Murino, V., & Van De Ville, D. (2016, April). Traces of human functional activity: Moment-to-moment fluctuations in fMRI data. In 2016 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) (pp. 1307-1310). IEEE.
• Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., ... & Duchesnay, É. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research, 12, 2825-2830.