Cited by 1,445Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

A generalized form of context-dependent psychophysiological interactions (gPPI): A comparison to standard approaches

Open access
McLaren, Donald G., Ries, Michele L., Xu, Guofan, Johnson, Sterling C.·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

Functional MRI (fMRI) allows one to study task-related regional responses and task-dependent connectivity analysis using psychophysiological interaction (PPI) methods. The latter affords the additional opportunity to understand how brain regions interact in a task-dependent manner. The current implementation of PPI in Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM8) is configured primarily to assess connectivity differences between two task conditions, when in practice fMRI tasks frequently employ more than two conditions. Here we evaluate how a generalized form of context-dependent PPI (gPPI; http://www.nitrc.org/projects/gppi), which is configured to automatically accommodate more than two task conditions in the same PPI model by spanning the entire experimental space, compares to the standard implementation in SPM8. These comparisons are made using both simulations and an empirical dataset. In the simulated dataset, we compare the interaction beta estimates to their expected values and model fit using the Akaike information criterion (AIC). We found that interaction beta estimates in gPPI were robust to different simulated data models, were not different from the expected beta value, and had better model fits than when using standard PPI (sPPI) methods. In the empirical dataset, we compare the model fit of the gPPI approach to sPPI. We found that the gPPI approach improved model fit compared to sPPI. There were several regions that became non-significant with gPPI. These regions all showed significantly better model fits with gPPI. Also, there were several regions where task-dependent connectivity was only detected using gPPI methods, also with improved model fit. Regions that were detected with all methods had more similar model fits. These results suggest that gPPI may have greater sensitivity and specificity than standard implementation in SPM. This notion is tempered slightly as there is no gold standard; however, data simulations with a known outcome support our conclusions about gPPI. In sum, the generalized form of context-dependent PPI approach has increased flexibility of statistical modeling, and potentially improves model fit, specificity to true negative findings, and sensitivity to true positive findings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.068

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Amygdala dysfunction underlies psychopathology.

    “with amygdala dysfunction underlying psychopathology;59”

    From Distinct and shared therapeutic neural mechanisms of mindfulness-based and social support stress reduction groups in adults with autism spectrum disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Introduction discusses psychophysiological interaction methods, and the Empirical Data section describes a recognition-memory study in healthy participants; neither addresses amygdala dysfunction as an underlying cause of psychopathology. Searches for “amygdala dysfunction underlying psychopathology” and “amygdala psychopathology psychiatric disorders” found no relevant passage in our copy. No page numbers were provided for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McLaren, D. G., Ries, M. L., Xu, G., & Johnson, S. C.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Sterling C.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
1277-1286
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132137022
Cited by
1,445
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 139 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 129 · 2017: 120 · 2016: 122 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 7
FWCI
23.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Review (I01CX000165)
  • National Institutes of Health (AG021155, AG000213)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
generalized psychophysiological interaction, functional MRI, statistical parametric mapping, model fit, Akaike information criterion, brain connectivity
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Psychophysiology, Sensitivity and Specificity

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