Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of resting condition on resting-state fMRI reliability and consistency: A comparison between resting with eyes open, closed, and fixated

Open access
Patriat, Rémi, Molloy, Erin K., Meier, Timothy B., Kirk, Gregory R., Nair, Veena A., Meyerand, Mary E., Prabhakaran, Vivek, Birn, Rasmus M.·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

Resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) has been demonstrated to have moderate to high reliability and produces consistent patterns of connectivity across a wide variety of subjects, sites, and scanners. However, there is no one agreed upon method to acquire rs-fMRI data. Some sites instruct their subjects, or patients, to lie still with their eyes closed, while other sites instruct their subjects to keep their eyes open or even fixating on a cross during scanning. Several studies have compared those three resting conditions based on connectivity strength. In our study, we assess differences in metrics of test–retest reliability (using an intraclass correlation coefficient), and consistency of the rank-order of connections within a subject and the ranks of subjects for a particular connection from one session to another (using Kendall's W tests). Twenty-five healthy subjects were scanned at three different time points for each resting condition, twice the same day and another time two to three months later. Resting-state functional connectivity measures were evaluated in motor, visual, auditory, attention, and default-mode networks, and compared between the different resting conditions. Of the networks examined, only the auditory network resulted in significantly higher connectivity in the eyes closed condition compared to the other two conditions. No significant between-condition differences in connectivity strength were found in default mode, attention, visual, and motor networks. Overall, the differences in reliability and consistency between different resting conditions were relatively small in effect size but results were found to be significant. Across all within-network connections, and within default-mode, attention, and auditory networks statistically significant greater reliability was found when the subjects were lying with their eyes fixated on a cross. In contrast, primary visual network connectivity was most reliable when subjects had their eyes open (and not fixating on a cross).

Overview

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.2013.04.013

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 390

Metadata

Authors
Patriat, R., Molloy, E. K., Meier, T. B., Kirk, G. R., Nair, V. A., Meyerand, M. E., Prabhakaran, V., & Birn, R. M.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
78
Pages
463-473
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045506786
Cited by
390
References
18
FWCI
17.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effect of resting condition on resting-state fMRI reliability and consistency: A comparison between resting with eyes open, closed, and fixated. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.013
The paper
Patriat, R., Molloy, E. K., Meier, T. B., Kirk, G. R., Nair, V. A., Meyerand, M. E., Prabhakaran, V., & Birn, R. M. (2013). The effect of resting condition on resting-state fMRI reliability and consistency: A comparison between resting with eyes open, closed, and fixated. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.