ArticleHuman brain mapping2023
Using predictive validity to compare associations between brain damage and behavior.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct Patterns of Syntactic Errors Doubly Dissociate in Chronic Poststroke Aphasia.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- The lesion correlates of impaired content word fluency during spoken discourse in aphasia.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Using predictive validity to compare associations between brain damage and behavior.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lesion-behavior mapping (LBM) provides a statistical map of the association between voxel-wise brain damage and individual differences in behavior. To understand whether two behaviors are mediated by damage to distinct regions, researchers often compare LBM weight outputs by either the Overlap method or the Correlation method. However, these methods lack statistical criteria to determine whether two LBM are distinct versus the same and are disconnected from a major goal of LBMs: predicting behavior from brain damage. Without such criteria, researchers may draw conclusions from numeric differences between LBMs that are irrelevant to predicting behavior. We developed and validated a predictive validity comparison method (PVC) that establishes a statistical criterion for comparing two LBMs using predictive accuracy: two LBMs are distinct if and only if they provide unique predictive power for the behaviors being assessed. We applied PVC to two lesion-behavior stroke data sets, demonstrating its utility for determining when behaviors arise from the same versus different lesion patterns. Using region-of-interest-based simulations derived from proportion damage from a large data set (n = 131), PVC accurately detected when behaviors were mediated by different regions (high sensitivity) versus the same region (high specificity). Both the Overlap method and Correlation method performed poorly on the simulated data. By objectively determining whether two behavioral deficits can be explained by single versus distinct patterns of brain damage, PVC provides a critical advance in establishing the brain bases of behavior. We have developed and released a GUI-driven web app to encourage widespread adoption.
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.