↓ Skip to main content

The perils of global signal regression for group comparisons: a case study of Autism Spectrum Disorders

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
216 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 perils of global signal regression for group comparisons: a case study of Autism Spectrum Disorders
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00356
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen J. Gotts, Ziad S. Saad, Hang Joon Jo, Gregory L. Wallace, Robert W. Cox, Alex Martin

Abstract

We have previously argued from a theoretical basis that the standard practice of regression of the Global Signal from the fMRI time series in functional connectivity studies is ill advised, particularly when comparing groups of participants. Here, we demonstrate in resting-state data from participants with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and matched controls that these concerns are also well founded in real data. Using the prior theoretical work to formulate predictions, we show: (1) rather than simply altering the mean or range of correlation values amongst pairs of brain regions, Global Signal Regression systematically alters the rank ordering of values in addition to introducing negative values, (2) it leads to a reversal in the direction of group correlation differences relative to other preprocessing approaches, with a higher incidence of both long-range and local correlation differences that favor the Autism Spectrum Disorder group, (3) the strongest group differences under other preprocessing approaches are the ones most altered by Global Signal Regression, and (4) locations showing group differences no longer agree with those showing correlations with behavioral symptoms within the Autism Spectrum Disorder group. The correlation matrices of both participant groups under Global Signal Regression were well predicted by our previous mathematical analyses, demonstrating that there is nothing mysterious about these results. Finally, when independent physiological nuisance measures are lacking, we provide a simple alternative approach for assessing and lessening the influence of global correlations on group comparisons that replicates our previous findings. While this alternative performs less well for symptom correlations than our favored preprocessing approach that includes removal of independent physiological measures, it is preferable to the use of Global Signal Regression, which prevents unequivocal conclusions about the direction or location of group differences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
India 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 205 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 17%
Student > Master 30 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 42 19%
Unknown 37 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 24%
Neuroscience 38 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 8%
Engineering 11 5%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 55 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 August 2022.
All research outputs
#5,637,831
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,215
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,823
of 284,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#326
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 284,930 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 79% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.