Cited by 632Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Can sliding-window correlations reveal dynamic functional connectivity in resting-state fMRI?

Open access
Hindriks, R., Adhikari, M.H., Murayama, Y., Ganzetti, M., Mantini, D., Logothetis, N.K., Deco, G.·2016·NeuroImage

Abstract

During the last several years, the focus of research on resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shifted from the analysis of functional connectivity averaged over the duration of scanning sessions to the analysis of changes of functional connectivity within sessions. Although several studies have reported the presence of dynamic functional connectivity (dFC), statistical assessment of the results is not always carried out in a sound way and, in some studies, is even omitted. In this study, we explain why appropriate statistical tests are needed to detect dFC, we describe how they can be carried out and how to assess the performance of dFC measures, and we illustrate the methodology using spontaneous blood-oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) fMRI recordings of macaque monkeys under general anesthesia and in human subjects under resting-state conditions. We mainly focus on sliding-window correlations since these are most widely used in assessing dFC, but also consider a recently proposed non-linear measure. The simulations and methodology, however, are general and can be applied to any measure. The results are twofold. First, through simulations, we show that in typical resting-state sessions of 10 min, it is almost impossible to detect dFC using sliding-window correlations. This prediction is validated by both the macaque and the human data: in none of the individual recording sessions was evidence for dFC found. Second, detection power can be considerably increased by session- or subject-averaging of the measures. In doing so, we found that most of the functional connections are in fact dynamic. With this study, we hope to raise awareness of the statistical pitfalls in the assessment of dFC and how they can be avoided by using appropriate statistical methods.

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.2015.11.055

Cites

47 of 47 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?

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
Hindriks, R., Adhikari, M. H., Murayama, Y., Ganzetti, M., Mantini, D., Logothetis, N. K., & Deco, G.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
  • Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics (DE)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
Corresponding author
Hindriks, R.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
127
Pages
242-256
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2180423080
Cited by
632
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 77 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 1
FWCI
33.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2016-05-15)
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (101253/Z/13/Z., 101253)
  • Royal Society (101253/Z/13/Z)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (295129)
  • FP7 Information and Communication Technologies
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
dynamic functional connectivity, resting-state fMRI, sliding window correlation, statistical power, BOLD signal, macaque, research participants, statistical pitfalls
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Macaca, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Rest

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