ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Towards precision EEG connectomics: Evaluating the benefits of dense sampling.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
EEG connectomics research offers the potential to better understand human neurodevelopment, brain disorders, and brain-behavior associations. Several functional connectivity (FC) measures are widely used but few studies have directly compared metrics of reliability across measures and how data quantity influences these properties. Here, we collected a densely sampled dataset from 25 parent-child pairs, with 80 minutes of passive viewing EEG data collected per participant over 4 sessions, and calculated connectomes using 9 popular phase- and envelope-based measures (coherence, COH; phase locking value, PLV; corrected imaginary phase locking value, CIPLV; imaginary coherence, IMCOH; phase-lag index, PLI; weighted phase-lag index, WPLI; envelope correlation with pairwise orthogonalization, ECPWO; and envelope correlation with symmetric orthogonalization, ECSO), including one effective connectivity measure (phase slope index; PSI). We used connectome individualization, derived from fingerprinting-style analyses, as a multivariate reliability metric, as used in fMRI-FC studies. We used simulations with individual head geometry but no "true" connectivity to assess whether identifiability was influenced by volume conduction. We found that COH and PLV were vulnerable to volume conduction influence on identifiability; CIPLV, ECSO, and ECPWO were semi-vulnerable; and IMCOH, WPLI, PLI, and PSI were minimally vulnerable. Next, we considered individualization and reliability of age-group effects with increasing time of data collection. IMCOH had the overall best performance among minimally vulnerable measures, considering individualization and reliability of group effects. We further found that reliability of IMCOH along with other volume conduction-corrected EEG-FC measures continued to improve with up to 25-30 minutes of data. Together, our findings can support study design decisions in EEG connectomics research.
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.