↓ Skip to main content

The Quest for EEG Power Band Correlation with ICA Derived fMRI Resting State Networks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
77 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 Quest for EEG Power Band Correlation with ICA Derived fMRI Resting State Networks
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Christoph Meyer, Ronald Johannes Janssen, Erik Sophius Bartus Van Oort, Christian F. Beckmann, Markus Barth

Abstract

The neuronal underpinnings of blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) resting state networks (RSNs) are still unclear. To investigate the underlying mechanisms, specifically the relation to the electrophysiological signal, we used simultaneous recordings of electroencephalography (EEG) and fMRI during eyes open resting state (RS). Earlier studies using the EEG signal as independent variable show inconclusive results, possibly due to variability in the temporal correlations between RSNs and power in the low EEG frequency bands, as recently reported (Goncalves et al., 2006, 2008; Meyer et al., 2013). In this study we use three different methods including one that uses RSN timelines as independent variable to explore the temporal relationship of RSNs and EEG frequency power in eyes open RS in detail. The results of these three distinct analysis approaches support the hypothesis that the correlation between low EEG frequency power and BOLD RSNs is instable over time, at least in eyes open RS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 3%
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Cuba 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Master 14 18%
Professor 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 19%
Psychology 13 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Engineering 8 10%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 12 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,145,205
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,776
of 7,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,169
of 283,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#727
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 283,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.