ArticleHuman brain mapping2013
The equivalence of linear Gaussian connectivity techniques.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resting-State vs. Task-Based Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Neurosurgical Planning: A Narrative Review of Clinical Applications.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Diffusion of responsibility attenuates altruistic punishment: A functional magnetic resonance imaging effective connectivity study.Human brain mapping · 2016Article
- Patterns of effective connectivity during memory encoding and retrieval differ between patients with mild cognitive impairment and healthy older adults.NeuroImage · 2016Article
- Changes of functional and effective connectivity in smoking replenishment on deprived heavy smokers: a resting-state FMRI study.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The theoretical basis of linear Gaussian connectivity methods for the analysis of fMRI data is examined in this article, resulting in a clarification of methodological dependencies between techniques. In particular, Granger causality connectivity procedures, which describe instantaneous and directed influence between sets of voxel timeseries, are shown to be remappings of correlation-based metrics. Furthermore, the statistical inference tests applied to pairwise Granger causality measures are theoretically shown to be equivalent to inference tests applied to correlation-based metrics. These results are demonstrated empirically using receiver operating characteristic curves derived from vector autoregressive models of various lags, sample size, and noise covariance values. The equivalence of linear Granger causality and correlation-based methods, in both metric and test statistic, renders linear Granger causality a restatement of traditional data-driven methodologies in the context of brain connectivity studies. Furthermore, the equivalence highlights the centrality of partial correlation and partial variance in linear connectivity analyses and bridges the gap between functional and effective connectivity techniques. Consequently, rather than a distinction rooted in methodological difference, the dichotomy between functional and effective connectivity methods is ultimately a function of model configuration realized in choices such as the selection of nodes, the choice to model instantaneous and/or directed influence, and the choice to employ many bivariate models or a single multivariate model. While these theoretical results may be unsurprising to the reader with advanced statistical knowledge, they highlight the importance of a clear understanding of the theoretical basis of connectivity analysis methods for human brain mapping researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.