↓ Skip to main content

Resting-state test–retest reliability of a priori defined canonical networks over different preprocessing steps

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Structure and Function, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 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
Resting-state test–retest reliability of a priori defined canonical networks over different preprocessing steps
Published in
Brain Structure and Function, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00429-016-1286-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deepthi P. Varikuti, Felix Hoffstaedter, Sarah Genon, Holger Schwender, Andrew T. Reid, Simon B. Eickhoff

Abstract

Resting-state functional connectivity analysis has become a widely used method for the investigation of human brain connectivity and pathology. The measurement of neuronal activity by functional MRI, however, is impeded by various nuisance signals that reduce the stability of functional connectivity. Several methods exist to address this predicament, but little consensus has yet been reached on the most appropriate approach. Given the crucial importance of reliability for the development of clinical applications, we here investigated the effect of various confound removal approaches on the test-retest reliability of functional-connectivity estimates in two previously defined functional brain networks. Our results showed that gray matter masking improved the reliability of connectivity estimates, whereas denoising based on principal components analysis reduced it. We additionally observed that refraining from using any correction for global signals provided the best test-retest reliability, but failed to reproduce anti-correlations between what have been previously described as antagonistic networks. This suggests that improved reliability can come at the expense of potentially poorer biological validity. Consistent with this, we observed that reliability was proportional to the retained variance, which presumably included structured noise, such as reliable nuisance signals (for instance, noise induced by cardiac processes). We conclude that compromises are necessary between maximizing test-retest reliability and removing variance that may be attributable to non-neuronal sources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 %
Italy 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 30%
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 23 29%
Psychology 16 20%
Engineering 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 26 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,199,763
of 25,026,088 outputs
Outputs from Brain Structure and Function
#136
of 1,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,088
of 351,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Structure and Function
#2
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,026,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 351,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.