Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42189282›Full record

ArticleBrain topography2026

Appropriate Null Models for Testing the Effect of the Head Model on MEG Functional Connectivity Fingerprinting.

Matthias Schelfhout, Thomas Hinault, Sara Lago, Giorgio Arcara, Enrico Amico, Matteo Fraschini, Daniele Marinazzo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain topography, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Matthias SchelfhoutDepartment of Data Analysis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Thomas HinaultNeuropsychology and Imaging of Human Memory, University of Caen, Caen, France.
Sara LagoIRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
Giorgio ArcaraIRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Venice, Italy.
Enrico AmicoSchool of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Matteo FraschiniDipartimento di Ingegneria elettrica ed elettronica, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Daniele MarinazzoDepartment of Data Analysis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. daniele.marinazzo@ugent.be.

Funding

Ministero della Salute GR-2018-12366092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional connectivity (FC)-based neural fingerprinting is an approach that promises to identify and/or differentiate subjects within a cohort on the basis of the patterns of statistical dependencies between time series recorded mostly if not always noninvasively, with electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The message is that brain activity is what differentiates subjects, or what makes a neural fingerprint "unique". In EEG- and MEG-derived FC fingerprinting, the activity recorded at the sensors is usually projected back into cortical sources by means of an inverse model depending on head and brain shapes, sensor locations, and tissue conductivity, and further reduced in dimension to obtain time series of regional activity, used to compute FC. We argue that the role of the head model in fingerprinting has been so far tested by means of suboptimal or incomplete null models. Here we employed a set of experiments aimed to decouple recorded sensor data and head model for each subject, constituting what we consider more appropriate tests of the null hypothesis of no head model effect on fingerprinting. When the same source-level data are used for all subjects, so that only the head model varies across subjects, identification is perfect (EER = 0) across all frequency bands. When the same head model is applied to all subjects, so that only the neural data vary, identifiability and differentiability are substantially degraded compared to the standard matched condition. These results jointly show that the null hypothesis of no head model effect on fingerprinting cannot be sustained. We make no claim about the relative size of neural versus anatomical contributions, nor about the specific mechanism through which the head model affects fingerprinting metrics.

Indexed as

BrainBrain MappingHeadMagnetoencephalographyModels, NeurologicalElectroencephalographyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural PathwaysBrain connectivityDifferentiabilityHead modelMEG Fingerprinting

Identifiers

PMID42189282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.