↓ Skip to main content

Defining nodes in complex brain networks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
288 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
Defining nodes in complex brain networks
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2013.00169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew L. Stanley, Malaak N. Moussa, Brielle M. Paolini, Robert G. Lyday, Jonathan H. Burdette, Paul J. Laurienti

Abstract

Network science holds great promise for expanding our understanding of the human brain in health, disease, development, and aging. Network analyses are quickly becoming the method of choice for analyzing functional MRI data. However, many technical issues have yet to be confronted in order to optimize results. One particular issue that remains controversial in functional brain network analyses is the definition of a network node. In functional brain networks a node represents some predefined collection of brain tissue, and an edge measures the functional connectivity between pairs of nodes. The characteristics of a node, chosen by the researcher, vary considerably in the literature. This manuscript reviews the current state of the art based on published manuscripts and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of three main methods for defining nodes. Voxel-wise networks are constructed by assigning a node to each, equally sized brain area (voxel). The fMRI time-series recorded from each voxel is then used to create the functional network. Anatomical methods utilize atlases to define the nodes based on brain structure. The fMRI time-series from all voxels within the anatomical area are averaged and subsequently used to generate the network. Functional activation methods rely on data from traditional fMRI activation studies, often from databases, to identify network nodes. Such methods identify the peaks or centers of mass from activation maps to determine the location of the nodes. Small (~10-20 millimeter diameter) spheres located at the coordinates of the activation foci are then applied to the data being used in the network analysis. The fMRI time-series from all voxels in the sphere are then averaged, and the resultant time series is used to generate the network. We attempt to clarify the discussion and move the study of complex brain networks forward. While the "correct" method to be used remains an open, possibly unsolvable question that deserves extensive debate and research, we argue that the best method available at the current time is the voxel-wise method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 274 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 28%
Researcher 56 19%
Student > Master 45 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 4%
Other 35 12%
Unknown 42 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 49 17%
Psychology 40 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 11%
Engineering 31 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 8%
Other 50 17%
Unknown 61 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 13 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,451,231
of 24,953,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#54
of 1,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,902
of 293,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#5
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,953,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 293,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 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.