↓ Skip to main content

The Problem of Thresholding in Small-World Network Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2013
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
9 patents
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
The Problem of Thresholding in Small-World Network Analysis
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0053199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Langer, Andreas Pedroni, Lutz Jäncke

Abstract

Graph theory deterministically models networks as sets of vertices, which are linked by connections. Such mathematical representation of networks, called graphs are increasingly used in neuroscience to model functional brain networks. It was shown that many forms of structural and functional brain networks have small-world characteristics, thus, constitute networks of dense local and highly effective distal information processing. Motivated by a previous small-world connectivity analysis of resting EEG-data we explored implications of a commonly used analysis approach. This common course of analysis is to compare small-world characteristics between two groups using classical inferential statistics. This however, becomes problematic when using measures of inter-subject correlations, as it is the case in commonly used brain imaging methods such as structural and diffusion tensor imaging with the exception of fibre tracking. Since for each voxel, or region there is only one data point, a measure of connectivity can only be computed for a group. To empirically determine an adequate small-world network threshold and to generate the necessary distribution of measures for classical inferential statistics, samples are generated by thresholding the networks on the group level over a range of thresholds. We believe that there are mainly two problems with this approach. First, the number of thresholded networks is arbitrary. Second, the obtained thresholded networks are not independent samples. Both issues become problematic when using commonly applied parametric statistical tests. Here, we demonstrate potential consequences of the number of thresholds and non-independency of samples in two examples (using artificial data and EEG data). Consequently alternative approaches are presented, which overcome these methodological issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Japan 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 129 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 32%
Researcher 28 20%
Student > Master 13 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 21 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 13%
Psychology 15 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Engineering 14 10%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 32 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 April 2024.
All research outputs
#4,812,273
of 23,485,204 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#68,653
of 201,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,589
of 284,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,149
of 4,779 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 201,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 284,851 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,779 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.