↓ Skip to main content

New Insights into Signed Path Coefficient Granger Causality Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
New Insights into Signed Path Coefficient Granger Causality Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2016.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Zhang, Chong Li, Tianzi Jiang

Abstract

Granger causality analysis, as a time series analysis technique derived from econometrics, has been applied in an ever-increasing number of publications in the field of neuroscience, including fMRI, EEG/MEG, and fNIRS. The present study mainly focuses on the validity of "signed path coefficient Granger causality," a Granger-causality-derived analysis method that has been adopted by many fMRI researches in the last few years. This method generally estimates the causality effect among the time series by an order-1 autoregression, and defines a positive or negative coefficient as an "excitatory" or "inhibitory" influence. In the current work we conducted a series of computations from resting-state fMRI data and simulation experiments to illustrate the signed path coefficient method was flawed and untenable, due to the fact that the autoregressive coefficients were not always consistent with the real causal relationships and this would inevitablely lead to erroneous conclusions. Overall our findings suggested that the applicability of this kind of causality analysis was rather limited, hence researchers should be more cautious in applying the signed path coefficient Granger causality to fMRI data to avoid misinterpretation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Master 3 19%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 19%
Psychology 3 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 13%
Mathematics 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,339,935
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#549
of 751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,382
of 314,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 314,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.