↓ Skip to main content

Statistical network analysis for functional MRI: summary networks and group comparisons

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statistical network analysis for functional MRI: summary networks and group comparisons
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2014.00051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cedric E. Ginestet, Arnaud P. Fournel, Andrew Simmons

Abstract

Comparing networks in neuroscience is hard, because the topological properties of a given network are necessarily dependent on the number of edges in that network. This problem arises in the analysis of both weighted and unweighted networks. The term density is often used in this context, in order to refer to the mean edge weight of a weighted network, or to the number of edges in an unweighted one. Comparing families of networks is therefore statistically difficult because differences in topology are necessarily associated with differences in density. In this review paper, we consider this problem from two different perspectives, which include (i) the construction of summary networks, such as how to compute and visualize the summary network from a sample of network-valued data points; and (ii) how to test for topological differences, when two families of networks also exhibit significant differences in density. In the first instance, we show that the issue of summarizing a family of networks can be conducted by either adopting a mass-univariate approach, which produces a statistical parametric network (SPN). In the second part of this review, we then highlight the inherent problems associated with the comparison of topological functions of families of networks that differ in density. In particular, we show that a wide range of topological summaries, such as global efficiency and network modularity are highly sensitive to differences in density. Moreover, these problems are not restricted to unweighted metrics, as we demonstrate that the same issues remain present when considering the weighted versions of these metrics. We conclude by encouraging caution, when reporting such statistical comparisons, and by emphasizing the importance of constructing summary networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 88 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Master 10 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 16%
Computer Science 15 16%
Neuroscience 13 14%
Engineering 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 21 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2014.
All research outputs
#14,195,754
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#690
of 1,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,418
of 227,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.