Cited by 260Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Connectivity differences in brain networks

Zalesky, Andrew, Cocchi, Luca, Fornito, Alex, Murray, Micah M., Bullmore, Ed·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

The scenario considered here is one where brain connectivity is represented as a network and an experimenter wishes to assess the evidence for an experimental effect at each of the typically thousands of connections comprising the network. To do this, a univariate model is independently fitted to each connection. It would be unwise to declare significance based on an uncorrected threshold of α=0.05, since the expected number of false positives for a network comprising N=90 nodes and N(N-1)/2=4005 connections would be 200. Control of Type I errors over all connections is therefore necessary. The network-based statistic (NBS) and spatial pairwise clustering (SPC) are two distinct methods that have been used to control family-wise errors when assessing the evidence for an experimental effect with mass univariate testing. The basic principle of the NBS and SPC is the same as supra-threshold voxel clustering. Unlike voxel clustering, where the definition of a voxel cluster is unambiguous, 'clusters' formed among supra-threshold connections can be defined in different ways. The NBS defines clusters using the graph theoretical concept of connected components. SPC on the other hand uses a more stringent pairwise clustering concept. The purpose of this article is to compare the pros and cons of the NBS and SPC, provide some guidelines on their practical use and demonstrate their utility using a case study involving neuroimaging data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.068

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Currently, there is no consensus about which brain parcellation technique could be most useful.

    “Currently, there is no consensus about which brain parcellation technique could be most useful (de Reus and Van den Heuvel, 2013; Yeh et al., 2020; Zalesky et al., 2012).”
  • Selection of a gray matter parcellation scheme is the first essential consideration when constructing a structural connectivity matrix and has been shown to be highly consequential in connectome analysis.

    “Selection of a gray matter parcellation scheme (as described in Section 4.2) is the first essential consideration when constructing a structural connectivity matrix, and it has been shown to be highly consequential in connectome analysis (de Reus and Van den Heuvel, 2013; Yeh et al., 2020; Zalesky et al., 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zalesky, A., Cocchi, L., Fornito, A., Murray, M. M., & Bullmore, E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
Corresponding author
Zalesky, Andrew
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
1055-1062
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156372649
Cited by
260
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 7
FWCI
11.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Professor Trevor Kilpatrick
  • the Australian Research Council (DP0986320)
  • the Melbourne Neuroscience Institute
  • the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
  • the Swiss National Science Foundation (310030B_133136)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
brain connectivity, network-based statistics, multiple testing correction, connected components, false positives, EEG, brain networks
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Nerve Net

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review