ArticleNeuroImage2017
Variance decomposition for single-subject task-based fMRI activity estimates across many sessions.
Article in NeuroImage, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Unimodal and Multimodal Tracking Strategies for the Reconstruction of Language-related White Matter Tracts.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Towards whole brain mapping of the hemodynamic response function.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2025Article
- A precision neuroscience approach to estimating reliability of neural responses during emotion processing: Implications for task-fMRI.NeuroImage · 2024Article
- Detecting Task-Dependent Functional Connectivity in Group Iterative Multiple Model Estimation with Person-Specific Hemodynamic Response Functions.Brain connectivity · 2021Article
- Handling Multiplicity in Neuroimaging Through Bayesian Lenses with Multilevel Modeling.Neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- Methods for computing the maximum performance of computational models of fMRI responses.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Graph theory approaches to functional network organization in brain disorders: A critique for a brave new small-world.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2019Review
- Whole-Brain Exploratory Analysis of Functional Task Response Following Erythropoietin Treatment in Mood Disorders: A Supervised Machine Learning Approach.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Review
- Intraclass correlation: Improved modeling approaches and applications for neuroimaging.Human brain mapping · 2018Article
- Is the statistic value all we should care about in neuroimaging?NeuroImage · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Here we report an exploratory within-subject variance decomposition analysis conducted on a task-based fMRI dataset with an unusually large number of repeated measures (i.e., 500 trials in each of three different subjects) distributed across 100 functional scans and 9 to 10 different sessions. Within-subject variance was segregated into four primary components: variance across-sessions, variance across-runs within a session, variance across-blocks within a run, and residual measurement/modeling error. Our results reveal inhomogeneous and distinct spatial distributions of these variance components across significantly active voxels in grey matter. Measurement error is dominant across the whole brain. Detailed evaluation of the remaining three components shows that across-session variance is the second largest contributor to total variance in occipital cortex, while across-runs variance is the second dominant source for the rest of the brain. Network-specific analysis revealed that across-block variance contributes more to total variance in higher-order cognitive networks than in somatosensory cortex. Moreover, in some higher-order cognitive networks across-block variance can exceed across-session variance. These results help us better understand the temporal (i.e., across blocks, runs and sessions) and spatial distributions (i.e., across different networks) of within-subject natural variability in estimates of task responses in fMRI. They also suggest that different brain regions will show different natural levels of test-retest reliability even in the absence of residual artifacts and sufficiently high contrast-to-noise measurements. Further confirmation with a larger sample of subjects and other tasks is necessary to ensure generality of these results.
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.