ArticleHuman brain mapping2022
Video-evoked fMRI BOLD responses are highly consistent across different data acquisition sites.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Dense Amygdala": Extensive Complex-valued Functional MRI of the Ventral and Medial Temporal Lobe during Passive Movie Watching in Three Individuals.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Social inference brain networks in autistic adults during movie-viewing: functional specialization and heterogeneity.Molecular autism · 2025Article
- Resting-State Functional Connectivity of the Amygdala in Autism: A Preregistered Large-Scale Study.The American journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
- Image harmonization: A review of statistical and deep learning methods for removing batch effects and evaluation metrics for effective harmonization.NeuroImage · 2023Review
- An evaluation of how connectopic mapping reveals visual field maps in V1.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Video-evoked fMRI BOLD responses are highly consistent across different data acquisition sites.Human brain mapping · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Naturalistic imaging paradigms, in which participants view complex videos in the scanner, are increasingly used in human cognitive neuroscience. Videos evoke temporally synchronized brain responses that are similar across subjects as well as within subjects, but the reproducibility of these brain responses across different data acquisition sites has not yet been quantified. Here, we characterize the consistency of brain responses across independent samples of participants viewing the same videos in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanners at different sites (Indiana University and Caltech). We compared brain responses collected at these different sites for two carefully matched datasets with identical scanner models, acquisition, and preprocessing details, along with a third unmatched dataset in which these details varied. Our overall conclusion is that for matched and unmatched datasets alike, video-evoked brain responses have high consistency across these different sites, both when compared across groups and across pairs of individuals. As one might expect, differences between sites were larger for unmatched datasets than matched datasets. Residual differences between datasets could in part reflect participant-level variability rather than scanner- or data- related effects. Altogether our results indicate promise for the development and, critically, generalization of video fMRI studies of individual differences in healthy and clinical populations alike.
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.