The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Group search algorithm recovers effective connectivity maps for individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous samples
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“GIMME is one of the only methods to date that can recover both the direction and presence of directed functional connectivity maps in heterogeneous data, making it an ideal place to start since it addresses the problem of heterogeneity.”
From Organizing Heterogeneous Samples Using Community Detection of GIMME-Derived Resting State Functional Networks (2014) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“This has been shown to vastly improve reliability and precision of individual-level connections [10].”
From Organizing Heterogeneous Samples Using Community Detection of GIMME-Derived Resting State Functional Networks (2014) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“As seen previously [10], GIMME reliably recovered the presence and true direction of connections at the group and individual levels and is one of the few approaches that can do so [46].”
From Organizing Heterogeneous Samples Using Community Detection of GIMME-Derived Resting State Functional Networks (2014) · cites this paper as [10]
Citations
Cites
Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research
Brown, T. A. (2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2769 · Cited by 15,621
Friston, K. J., Harrison, L., & Penny, W. (2003) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00202-7 · Cited by 4,583
Statistical Parametric Mapping: The Analysis of Functional Brain Images
Penny, W. D., Friston, K. J., Ashburner, J., Kiebel, S. J., & Thomas, N. (2007) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 3,339
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004) · Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective · doi:10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1 · Cited by 1,943
Self-citationNetwork modelling methods for FMRI
Smith, S. M., Miller, K. L., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Webster, M., Beckmann, C. F., Nichols, T. E., Ramsey, J. D., & Woolrich, M. W. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.063 · Cited by 1,878
Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: the Balloon model
Buxton, R. B., Wong, E. C., & Frank, L. R. (1998) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1910390602 · Cited by 1,665
The new person-specific paradigm in psychology
Molenaar, P. C. M., & Campbell, C. G. (2009) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01619.x · Cited by 1,088
Self-citationMarreiros, A. C., Stephan, K. E., & Friston, K. J. (2010) · Scholarpedia · doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.9568 · Cited by 564
A Dynamic Factor Model for the Analysis of Multivariate Time Series
Molenaar, P. C. M. (1985) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294246 · Cited by 482
Self-citationSörbom, D. (1989) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294623 · Cited by 424
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science
Borsboom, D., Deserno, M. K., Rhemtulla, M., Epskamp, S., Fried, E. I., McNally, R. J., Robinaugh, D. J., Perugini, M., Dalege, J., Costantini, G., et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w · Cited by 1,371
The Gaussian Graphical Model in Cross-Sectional and Time-Series Data
Epskamp, S., Waldorp, L., Mõttus, R., & Borsboom, D. (2018) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2018.1454823 · Cited by 1,247
Variable-Centered, Person-Centered, and Person-Specific Approaches: Where Theory Meets the Method
Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2018) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428117744021 · Cited by 1,121
Moving Forward: Challenges and Directions for Psychopathological Network Theory and Methodology
Fried, E. I., & Cramer, A. O. J. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617705892 · Cited by 1,015
A Network Approach to Psychopathology: New Insights into Clinical Longitudinal Data
Bringmann, L. F., Vissers, N., Wichers, M., Geschwind, N., Kuppens, P., Peeters, F. P. M. L., Borsboom, D., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060188 · Cited by 721
Metadata
- 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
