ReviewNeuropsychology review2025
Go with the (Blood) Flow: A Systematic Review on the Relationship Between Dynamic Functional Connectivity and Information Processing Speed.
Review in Neuropsychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) methods could shift understandings about brain-behavior relationships. Information processing speed (IPS) may be of particular interest to dFC analyses as dFC is able to capture time-sensitive FC changes. The present systematic review aims to explore the association between IPS and dFC of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI) data in healthy individuals. Included papers were published through July 24, 2023. Searches conducted on ProQuest and ScienceDirect used the search terms processing speed AND fMRI AND resting state AND dynamic functional connectivity OR dynamic functional network connectivity. Studies were eligible based on the following inclusion criteria: empirical research, published in English, use of a well-characterized healthy population (n > 30), use of rsfMRI, calculation of dFC, measurement of IPS, and a statistical test between dFC and IPS. Results reveal mixed findings. Five studies report no relationship between dFC and IPS, whereas eight report mixed or positive findings. We noted several trends in findings that may be driving inconsistencies. Over half of the reviewed studies used the Human Connectome Project data. Second, IPS was more likely to be related to dFC if images were acquired using an eyes open procedure with fixation on a crosshair. As all included IPS measures involved a visual component, IPS and dFC measurement might both be capturing information about visuoperceptual connections. Future work that addresses these biases and trends may illuminate the nature of the relationship between dFC and IPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40770165What 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.