ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Zero-phase-delay synchrony between interacting neural populations: implications for functional connectivity-derived biomarkers.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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.
- Shared spatial and temporal principles govern connectome dynamics across timescales.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Correlated amplitudes of potentials evoked in homologous muscles by magnetic stimulation reveal positive covariation of corticospinal output.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Higher integration of the whole-brain resting state theta band network is associated with spatial working memory.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neural populations synchronise their activity with either zero-phase delay (activity in interacting regions occurs simultaneously) or a phase delay (activity in one region follows the other). In electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography functional connectivity analyses, artefactual connectivity can also occur with zero-phase delay. To minimise artefact, contemporary analyses typically exclude all zero-phase-delay interactions. However, the extent to which "true" interactions are resultingly lost-and the impact this has on the performance of functional connectivity metrics as biomarkers-remains unknown. Here, we show that most cortico-cortical functional connectivity occurs with zero- or near-zero phase delay, even where such connectivity is unlikely to be artefactual. Including, rather than excluding, zero-phase-delay connectivity increases the reliability, convergence with neurobiology (structure-function concordance, homotopic interhemispheric connectivity, and age-related connectivity changes), and prognostic ability of functional connectivity metrics. We find that excluding zero-phase-delay connections penalises functional connectivity strength between the strongest structurally connected regions: stronger structural connections lead to functional connections with phase delays closer to zero, mediated by a shorter signal propagation time. Our findings challenge generally accepted assumptions that zero-phase-exclusive methods are superior to zero-phase-inclusive methods.
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.