↓ Skip to main content

EEG-Based Functional Brain Networks: Does the Network Size Matter?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
EEG-Based Functional Brain Networks: Does the Network Size Matter?
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035673
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amir Joudaki, Niloufar Salehi, Mahdi Jalili, Maria G. Knyazeva

Abstract

Functional connectivity in human brain can be represented as a network using electroencephalography (EEG) signals. These networks--whose nodes can vary from tens to hundreds--are characterized by neurobiologically meaningful graph theory metrics. This study investigates the degree to which various graph metrics depend upon the network size. To this end, EEGs from 32 normal subjects were recorded and functional networks of three different sizes were extracted. A state-space based method was used to calculate cross-correlation matrices between different brain regions. These correlation matrices were used to construct binary adjacency connectomes, which were assessed with regards to a number of graph metrics such as clustering coefficient, modularity, efficiency, economic efficiency, and assortativity. We showed that the estimates of these metrics significantly differ depending on the network size. Larger networks had higher efficiency, higher assortativity and lower modularity compared to those with smaller size and the same density. These findings indicate that the network size should be considered in any comparison of networks across studies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 2%
United States 4 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 150 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 34%
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 22 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 26 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 12%
Neuroscience 17 10%
Computer Science 17 10%
Psychology 16 10%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 34 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 April 2021.
All research outputs
#15,207,446
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,132
of 207,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,986
of 166,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,131
of 3,765 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 166,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,765 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.