ArticlePloS one2026
Test-retest reliability of meta analytic networks during naturalistic viewing.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional connectivity analyses have given considerable insights into human brain function and organization. As research moves towards clinical application, test-retest reliability has become a main focus of the field. So far, the majority of studies have relied on resting-state paradigms to examine brain connectivity, based on its low demand and ease of implementation. However, the reliability of resting-state measures is mostly poor to fair, potentially due to its unconstrained nature. Recently, naturalistic viewing paradigms have gained popularity because they probe the human brain under more ecologically valid conditions, possibly increasing reliability. We here compared the reliability of graph metrics extracted from resting-state and naturalistic viewing in functional networks, across two sessions. We show that naturalistic viewing can increase reliability over resting-state, but that its effect varies between stimuli and networks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the effect of naturalistic viewing differs between two cohorts with Asian and European cultural backgrounds. Taken together, our study encourages the use of naturalistic viewing to increase reliability, but emphasizes the need to carefully select the appropriate stimulus for the network at hand.
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.