↓ Skip to main content

ICA model order selection of task co-activation networks

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
ICA model order selection of task co-activation networks
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2013.00237
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly L. Ray, D. Reese McKay, Peter M. Fox, Michael C. Riedel, Angela M. Uecker, Christian F. Beckmann, Stephen M. Smith, Peter T. Fox, Angela R. Laird

Abstract

Independent component analysis (ICA) has become a widely used method for extracting functional networks in the brain during rest and task. Historically, preferred ICA dimensionality has widely varied within the neuroimaging community, but typically varies between 20 and 100 components. This can be problematic when comparing results across multiple studies because of the impact ICA dimensionality has on the topology of its resultant components. Recent studies have demonstrated that ICA can be applied to peak activation coordinates archived in a large neuroimaging database (i.e., BrainMap Database) to yield whole-brain task-based co-activation networks. A strength of applying ICA to BrainMap data is that the vast amount of metadata in BrainMap can be used to quantitatively assess tasks and cognitive processes contributing to each component. In this study, we investigated the effect of model order on the distribution of functional properties across networks as a method for identifying the most informative decompositions of BrainMap-based ICA components. Our findings suggest dimensionality of 20 for low model order ICA to examine large-scale brain networks, and dimensionality of 70 to provide insight into how large-scale networks fractionate into sub-networks. We also provide a functional and organizational assessment of visual, motor, emotion, and interoceptive task co-activation networks as they fractionate from low to high model-orders.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 5 3%
Netherlands 2 1%
United States 2 1%
China 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 166 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 29%
Researcher 36 20%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 20 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 48 27%
Psychology 36 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Engineering 15 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 34 19%
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 06 February 2014.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,688
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,364
of 289,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#133
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 289,007 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 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.