ArticleBrain topography2026
Appropriate Null Models for Testing the Effect of the Head Model on MEG Functional Connectivity Fingerprinting.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
42189282What 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.