↓ Skip to main content

A pooling-LiNGAM algorithm for effective connectivity analysis of fMRI data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
A pooling-LiNGAM algorithm for effective connectivity analysis of fMRI data
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2014.00125
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lele Xu, Tingting Fan, Xia Wu, KeWei Chen, Xiaojuan Guo, Jiacai Zhang, Li Yao

Abstract

The Independent Component Analysis (ICA)-linear non-Gaussian acyclic model (LiNGAM), an algorithm that can be used to estimate the causal relationship among non-Gaussian distributed data, has the potential value to detect the effective connectivity of human brain areas. Under the assumptions that (a): the data generating process is linear, (b) there are no unobserved confounders, and (c) data have non-Gaussian distributions, LiNGAM can be used to discover the complete causal structure of data. Previous studies reveal that the algorithm could perform well when the data points being analyzed is relatively long. However, there are too few data points in most neuroimaging recordings, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to allow the algorithm to converge. Smith's study speculates a method by pooling data points across subjects may be useful to address this issue (Smith et al., 2011). Thus, this study focus on validating Smith's proposal of pooling data points across subjects for the use of LiNGAM, and this method is named as pooling-LiNGAM (pLiNGAM). Using both simulated and real fMRI data, our current study demonstrates the feasibility and efficiency of the pLiNGAM on the effective connectivity estimation.

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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 23 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 28%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 24%
Engineering 6 24%
Neuroscience 4 16%
Computer Science 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 3 12%
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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,340,424
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#551
of 1,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,679
of 254,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#12
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 254,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 55% of its contemporaries.