↓ Skip to main content

Distinction Between Variability-Based Modulation and Mean-Based Activation Revealed by BOLD-fMRI and Eyes-Open/Eyes-Closed Contrast

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Distinction Between Variability-Based Modulation and Mean-Based Activation Revealed by BOLD-fMRI and Eyes-Open/Eyes-Closed Contrast
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00516
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pei-Wen Zhang, Xiu-Juan Qu, Shu-Fang Qian, Xin-Bo Wang, Rui-Di Wang, Qiu-Yue Li, Shi-Yu Liu, Lihong Chen, Dong-Qiang Liu

Abstract

Recent BOLD-fMRI studies have revealed spatial distinction between variability- and mean-based between-condition differences, suggesting that BOLD variability could offer complementary and even orthogonal views of brain function with traditional activation. However, these findings were mainly observed in block-designed fMRI studies. As block design may not be appreciate for characterizing the low-frequency dynamics of BOLD signal, the evidences suggesting the distinction between BOLD variability and mean are less convincing. Based on the high reproducibility of signal variability modulation between continuous eyes-open (EO) and eyes-closed (EC) states, here we employed EO/EC paradigm and BOLD-fMRI to compare variability- and mean-based EO/EC differences while the subjects were in light. The comparisons were made both on block-designed and continuous EO/EC data. Our results demonstrated that the spatial patterns of variability- and mean-based EO/EC differences were largely distinct with each other, both for block-designed and continuous data. For continuous data, increases of BOLD variability were found in secondary visual cortex and decreases were mainly in primary auditory cortex, primary sensorimotor cortex and medial nuclei of thalamus, whereas no significant mean-based differences were observed. For the block-designed data, the pattern of increased variability resembled that of continuous data and the negative regions were restricted to medial thalamus and a few clusters in auditory and sensorimotor networks, whereas activation regions were mainly located in primary visual cortex and lateral nuclei of thalamus. Furthermore, with the expanding window analyses we found variability results of continuous data exhibited a rather slower dynamical process than typically considered for task activation, suggesting block design is less optimal than continuous design in characterizing BOLD variability. In sum, we provided more solid evidences that variability-based modulation could represent orthogonal views of brain function with traditional mean-based activation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 5 26%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 32%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,428
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,732
of 340,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#170
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 340,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.