Cited by 478Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Group search algorithm recovers effective connectivity maps for individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous samples

Gates, Kathleen M., Molenaar, Peter C.M.·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

At its best, connectivity mapping can offer researchers great insight into how spatially disparate regions of the human brain coordinate activity during brain processing. A recent investigation conducted by Smith and colleagues (2011) on methods for estimating connectivity maps suggested that those which attempt to ascertain the direction of influence among ROIs rarely provide reliable results. Another problem gaining increasing attention is heterogeneity in connectivity maps. Most group-level methods require that the data come from homogeneous samples, and misleading findings may arise from current methods if the connectivity maps for individuals vary across the sample (which is likely the case). The utility of maps resulting from effective connectivity on the individual or group levels is thus diminished because they do not accurately inform researchers. The present paper introduces a novel estimation technique for fMRI researchers, Group Iterative Multiple Model Estimation (GIMME), which demonstrates that using information across individuals assists in the recovery of the existence of connections among ROIs used by Smith and colleagues (2011) and the direction of the influence. Using heterogeneous in-house data, we demonstrate that GIMME offers a unique improvement over current approaches by arriving at reliable group and individual structures even when the data are highly heterogeneous across individuals comprising the group. An added benefit of GIMME is that it obtains reliable connectivity map estimates equally well using the data from resting state, block, or event-related designs. GIMME provides researchers with a powerful, flexible tool for identifying directed connectivity maps at the group and individual levels.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.026

Cites

29 of 29 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gates, K. M., & Molenaar, P. C. M.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Gates, Kathleen M.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-10
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
310-319
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085423000
Cited by
478
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0852147, 1157220)
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
effective connectivity, GIMME, directed connectivity, heterogeneous samples, resting-state fMRI, connectivity mapping
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Brain Mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Nerve Net, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Sample Size, Connectome

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