Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24966818›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2014

Functional significance of complex fluctuations in brain activity: from resting state to cognitive neuroscience.

David Papo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Attaining the recesses of the cognitive space.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2022
    Article
  5. Broadband Dynamics Rather than Frequency-Specific Rhythms Underlie Prediction Error in the Primate Auditory Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Points and lines inside human brains.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2019
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Criticality as a signature of healthy neural systems.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2015
    Article
  20. How can we study reasoning in the brain?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David PapoComputational Systems Biology Group, Center for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavioral studies have shown that human cognition is characterized by properties such as temporal scale invariance, heavy-tailed non-Gaussian distributions, and long-range correlations at long time scales, suggesting models of how (non observable) components of cognition interact. On the other hand, results from functional neuroimaging studies show that complex scaling and intermittency may be generic spatio-temporal properties of the brain at rest. Somehow surprisingly, though, hardly ever have the neural correlates of cognition been studied at time scales comparable to those at which cognition shows scaling properties. Here, we analyze the meanings of scaling properties and the significance of their task-related modulations for cognitive neuroscience. It is proposed that cognitive processes can be framed in terms of complex generic properties of brain activity at rest and, ultimately, of functional equations, limiting distributions, symmetries, and possibly universality classes characterizing them.

Indexed as

ageingcognitive neurosciencefluctuation-dissipation theoremmultifractalsresting statescalingsymmetryweak ergodicity breaking

Identifiers

PMID24966818
PMCPMC4052734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.