ArticleNeuroinformatics2022
Controlling for Spurious Nonlinear Dependence in Connectivity Analyses.
Article in Neuroinformatics, 2022. 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.
- Connectivity analyses for task-based fMRI.Physics of life reviews · 2024Review
- Network Representation of fMRI Data Using Visibility Graphs: The Impact of Motion and Test-Retest Reliability.Neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Multivariate connectivity: A brief introduction and an open question.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Functional coordinates: Modeling interactions between brain regions as points in a function space.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent analysis methods can capture nonlinear interactions between brain regions. However, noise sources might induce spurious nonlinear relationships between the responses in different regions. Previous research has demonstrated that traditional denoising techniques effectively remove noise-induced linear relationships between brain areas, but it is unknown whether these techniques can remove spurious nonlinear relationships. To address this question, we analyzed fMRI responses while participants watched the film Forrest Gump. We tested whether nonlinear Multivariate Pattern Dependence Networks (MVPN) outperform linear MVPN in non-denoised data, and whether this difference is reduced after CompCor denoising. Whereas nonlinear MVPN outperformed linear MVPN in the non-denoised data, denoising removed these nonlinear interactions. We replicated our results using different neural network architectures as the bases of MVPN, different activation functions (ReLU and sigmoid), different dimensionality reduction techniques for CompCor (PCA and ICA), and multiple datasets, demonstrating that CompCor's ability to remove nonlinear interactions is robust across these analysis choices and across different groups of participants. Finally, we asked whether information contributing to the removal of nonlinear interactions is localized to specific anatomical regions of no interest or to specific principal components. We denoised the data 8 separate times by regressing out 5 principal components extracted from combined white matter (WM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), each of the 5 components separately, 5 components extracted from WM only, and 5 components extracted solely from CSF. In all cases, denoising was sufficient to remove the observed nonlinear interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34519963What 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.