Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40792041›Full record

ArticleiScience2025

Connectome-based predictive modeling of handwriting and reading using task-evoked and resting-state functional connectivity.

Junjun Li, Dai Zhang, Huan Ren, Ke Zhou, Yang Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Junjun LiState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
Dai ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230601, China.
Huan RenState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.
Ke ZhouBeijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University), Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.
Yang YangState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that functional connectivity-based models can characterize individual differences in human behavior. However, the applicability of such models to skilled motor behavior remains largely unexplored. In this study, we employed a connectome-based predictive modeling (CPM) approach to predict individual differences in handwriting skills using handwriting task-related and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. Our results demonstrated that general functional connectivity (GFC) metrics, which capture shared features across task-evoked and resting-state functional connectivity, reliably reflect individual differences in handwriting speed. This predictive model involved multiple functional networks associated with motor, visual, and executive control processes. Furthermore, we found that the GFC-based model derived from handwriting task and resting-state data also predicted individual differences in reading ability, revealing both shared and distinct neural substrates underlying handwriting and reading skills. These findings highlight the potential of neuroimaging in the diagnosis of handwriting- and reading-related disorders.

Indexed as

Cognitive neuroscienceNeuroscience

Identifiers

PMID40792041
PMCPMC12335965

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.