| Title |
Role of structural inhomogeneities in resting-state brain dynamics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Neurodynamics, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11571-016-9381-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vesna Vuksanović, Philipp Hövel |
| Abstract |
Brain imaging methods allow a non-invasive assessment of both structural and functional connectivity. However, the mechanism of how functional connectivity arises in a structured network of interacting neural populations is as yet poorly understood. Here we use a modeling approach to explore the way in which functional correlations arise from underlying structural connections taking into account inhomogeneities in the interactions between the brain regions of interest. The local dynamics of a neural population is assumed to be of phase-oscillator type. The considered structural connectivity patterns describe long-range anatomical connections between interacting neural elements. We find a dependence of the simulated functional connectivity patterns on the parameters governing the dynamics. We calculate graph-theoretic measures of the functional network topology obtained from numerical simulations. The effect of structural inhomogeneities in the coupling term on the observed network state is quantified by examining the relation between simulated and empirical functional connectivity. Importantly, we show that simulated and empirical functional connectivity agree for a narrow range of coupling strengths. We conclude that identification of functional connectivity during rest requires an analysis of the network dynamics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 4 | 27% |
| Engineering | 3 | 20% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,361,255
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Neurodynamics
#127
of 319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,011
of 298,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Neurodynamics
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 319 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.