Title |
A systematic framework for functional connectivity measures
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2014
|
DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2014.00405 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Huifang E. Wang, Christian G. Bénar, Pascale P. Quilichini, Karl J. Friston, Viktor K. Jirsa, Christophe Bernard |
Abstract |
Various methods have been proposed to characterize the functional connectivity between nodes in a network measured with different modalities (electrophysiology, functional magnetic resonance imaging etc.). Since different measures of functional connectivity yield different results for the same dataset, it is important to assess when and how they can be used. In this work, we provide a systematic framework for evaluating the performance of a large range of functional connectivity measures-based upon a comprehensive portfolio of models generating measurable responses. Specifically, we benchmarked 42 methods using 10,000 simulated datasets from 5 different types of generative models with different connectivity structures. Since all functional connectivity methods require the setting of some parameters (window size and number, model order etc.), we first optimized these parameters using performance criteria based upon (threshold free) ROC analysis. We then evaluated the performance of the methods on data simulated with different types of models. Finally, we assessed the performance of the methods against different levels of signal-to-noise ratios and network configurations. A MATLAB toolbox is provided to perform such analyses using other methods and simulated datasets. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 8 | 15% |
Mexico | 2 | 4% |
Australia | 2 | 4% |
France | 2 | 4% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
Japan | 1 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 35 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 34 | 62% |
Scientists | 18 | 33% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 7 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
Germany | 3 | <1% |
France | 3 | <1% |
Norway | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | <1% |
Unknown | 487 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 121 | 24% |
Researcher | 84 | 16% |
Student > Master | 80 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 31 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 5% |
Other | 88 | 17% |
Unknown | 80 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Neuroscience | 127 | 25% |
Engineering | 77 | 15% |
Psychology | 46 | 9% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 38 | 7% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 7% |
Other | 72 | 14% |
Unknown | 115 | 22% |