ArticleNature communications2026
In-scanner thoughts contribute to resting-state functional connectivity.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Group-to-individual generalizability and individual-level inferences in cognitive neuroscience.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025Review
- Review
- Mapping high-amplitude fMRI edge time series events across space and time.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Resting-state fMRI (rsfMRI) scans-acquired in the absence of experimentally controlled stimuli or task demands-are widely used to identify aberrant patterns of functional connectivity (FC) in clinical populations. To minimize interpretational uncertainty, researchers routinely control for across-cohort disparities in age, gender, comorbidities, and head motion. Yet, studies rarely consider the possibility that systematic differences in inner experience (i.e., how subjects think and feel during the scan) directly affect FC measures. Here, using an rsfMRI dataset comprising 469 scans with retrospective experiential annotations, we show that summary descriptors of in-scanner experience are reproducible across visits and subject-specific, consistent with trait-like characteristics. We further show that widespread significant differences in FC are observed between scans that are associated with different reported experiential profiles, and that FC can predict specific experiential dimensions with performance comparable to that reported for demographic, cognitive, and clinical variables. Together, these findings highlight the key role that in-scanner experience should play when interpreting FC in the context of rsfMRI. Given that the available experiential measures are retrospective summaries, these results speak to stable experiential tendencies rather than potential moment-to-moment, state-dependent relationships between ongoing experience and concurrent brain activity.
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.