Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37397893›Full record

ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2023

An information-theoretic analysis of resting-state versus task fMRI.

Julia Tuominen, Karsten Specht, Liucija Vaisvilaite, Peter Zeidman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Enhancing task fMRI individual difference research with neural signatures.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Julia TuominenDepartment of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0152-1700
Karsten SpechtDepartment of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9946-3704
Liucija VaisvilaiteDepartment of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4223-8941
Peter ZeidmanWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3610-6619

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Resting-state fMRI is an increasingly popular alternative to task-based fMRI. However, a formal quantification of the amount of information provided by resting-state fMRI as opposed to active task conditions about neural responses is lacking. We conducted a systematic comparison of the quality of inferences derived from a resting-state and a task fMRI paradigm by means of Bayesian Data Comparison. In this framework, data quality is formally quantified in information-theoretic terms as the precision and amount of information provided by the data on the parameters of interest. Parameters of effective connectivity, estimated from the cross-spectral densities of resting-state- and task time series by means of dynamic causal modelling (DCM), were subjected to the analysis. Data from 50 individuals undergoing resting-state and a Theory-of-Mind task were compared, both datasets provided by the Human Connectome Project. A threshold of very strong evidence was reached in favour of the Theory-of-Mind task (>10 bits or natural units) regarding information gain, which could be attributed to the active task condition eliciting stronger effective connectivity. Extending these analyses to other tasks and cognitive systems will reveal whether the superior informative value of task-based fMRI observed here is case specific or a more general trend.

Indexed as

Bayesian data comparisonData qualityEffective connectivityResting-stateTask fMRI

Identifiers

PMID37397893
PMCPMC10312267

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.