↓ Skip to main content

Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Functional Brain Networks: Does the Choice of Dependency Estimator and Binarization Method Matter?
Published in
Scientific Reports, July 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep29780
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahdi Jalili

Abstract

The human brain can be modelled as a complex networked structure with brain regions as individual nodes and their anatomical/functional links as edges. Functional brain networks are constructed by first extracting weighted connectivity matrices, and then binarizing them to minimize the noise level. Different methods have been used to estimate the dependency values between the nodes and to obtain a binary network from a weighted connectivity matrix. In this work we study topological properties of EEG-based functional networks in Alzheimer's Disease (AD). To estimate the connectivity strength between two time series, we use Pearson correlation, coherence, phase order parameter and synchronization likelihood. In order to binarize the weighted connectivity matrices, we use Minimum Spanning Tree (MST), Minimum Connected Component (MCC), uniform threshold and density-preserving methods. We find that the detected AD-related abnormalities highly depend on the methods used for dependency estimation and binarization. Topological properties of networks constructed using coherence method and MCC binarization show more significant differences between AD and healthy subjects than the other methods. These results might explain contradictory results reported in the literature for network properties specific to AD symptoms. The analysis method should be seriously taken into account in the interpretation of network-based analysis of brain signals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 12 15%
Engineering 8 10%
Computer Science 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 32 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,915,021
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#67,288
of 139,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,253
of 366,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,734
of 3,678 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 139,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 366,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,678 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.