ArticleBrain topography2025
Investigating the Variability of Physiological Response Functions across Individuals and Brain Regions in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Brain topography, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When Can Brain Connectivity Track the Working Mind? A Large-Scale Benchmark of Dynamic Functional Connectivity Across Cognitive Paradigms.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a valuable neuroimaging tool for studying brain function and connectivity. However, the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal used in fMRI is affected by various physiological factors, such as cardiac and respiratory activity, which can influence functional connectivity patterns. As such, physiological noise correction is a crucial preprocessing step in fMRI data analysis. When concurrent physiological recordings are available, researchers often generate nuisance regressors to account for the effect of heart rate and respiratory variations by convolving physiological response functions (PRF) with the corresponding physiological signals. However, it has been suggested that the PRF characteristics may vary across subjects and different regions of the brain, as well as across scans of the same subject. To explore this variability, we examine the performance of several different PRF models, in terms of BOLD variance explained, using resting-state fMRI data from the Human Connectome Project (N = 100). We examined both one-input (heart rate or respiration) and two-input (heart rate and respiration) PRF models and show that allowing PRFs to vary across subjects and brain regions generally improves PRF model performance. For one-input models, the improvement in model performance gained by allowing spatial variability was most prominent for respiration, particularly for a subset of the subjects (about a third) examined. Subject-specific or regional variability in cardiac response only enhanced performance when using two-input models. Overall, our results highlight the importance of considering spatial and subject-specific variability in PRFs when analyzing fMRI data, particularly regarding respiratory-related fluctuations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41413304What 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.