ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2023
Quantifying the contribution of subject and group factors in brain activation.
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2023. 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.
- Multiple brain activation patterns for the same perceptual decision-making task.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Group-to-individual generalizability and individual-level inferences in cognitive neuroscience.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025Review
- Functional connectivity heterogeneity and consequences for clinical and cognitive prediction: Stage 2 registered report.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Behavior can be decoded across the cortex when individual differences are considered.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research in neuroscience often assumes universal neural mechanisms, but increasing evidence points toward sizeable individual differences in brain activations. What remains unclear is the extent of the idiosyncrasy and whether different types of analyses are associated with different levels of idiosyncrasy. Here we develop a new method for addressing these questions. The method consists of computing the within-subject reliability and subject-to-group similarity of brain activations and submitting these values to a computational model that quantifies the relative strength of group- and subject-level factors. We apply this method to a perceptual decision-making task (n = 50) and find that activations related to task, reaction time, and confidence are influenced equally strongly by group- and subject-level factors. Both group- and subject-level factors are dwarfed by a noise factor, though higher levels of smoothing increases their contributions relative to noise. Overall, our method allows for the quantification of group- and subject-level factors of brain activations and thus provides a more detailed understanding of the idiosyncrasy levels in brain activations.
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.