pearson correlation r fc - sc  (Enzo Biochem)

Journal: Human Brain Mapping

Article Title: Avalanche criticality in individuals, fluid intelligence, and working memory

doi: 10.1002/hbm.25802

Figure Lengend Snippet: Signatures of criticality as a function of mean synchronization (MS) in resting‐state brain networks. (a) Top panel: The inverted‐U trajectory of the MS r versus synchronization entropy (SE) H r . The red dashed line represents the quadratic fit of the data ( F = 188.758 , p < .001 , adjusted R 2 = 0.561 ). Bottom panel: The frequency count for the distribution of MS r . (b) The branching parameters σ versus r for each subject. The green dashed line indicates σ = 1 . The Pearson correlation value R and the p value are shown in the figure. The red dashed line represents the linear regression. For further analysis, we selected three representative groups of subjects according to their synchronization level: namely, low mean synchronization (LMS) group ( r = 0.2824 ± 0.0219 , blue open circles in a and b), moderate mean synchronization (MMS) group ( r = 0.5041 ± 0.0042 , green open circles in a and b), and high mean synchronization (HMS) group ( r = 0.6304 ± 0.0246 , red open circles in a and b). (c) Avalanche size distributions for the LMS group, MMS group, and HMS group. To show the difference between these groups, we used gray lines with α = 1.47 to guide the eyes. The corresponding group‐aggregated branching parameters are σ LMS = 0.7237 for the LMS group, σ MMS = 1.0123 for the MMS group, and σ HMS = 1.2023 for the HMS group. (d) Avalanche duration distributions for three groups in c. To show the difference between these groups, we used gray lines with τ = 1.7 to guide the eyes. (e) Scaling relations for the three groups. The blue line and purple line correspond to γ and τ − 1 α − 1 , respectively. In the inset, δ = γ − τ − 1 α − 1 indicates the distance to the critical point. (f) The dependence of κ on the numbers m of histogram bins for the three groups

Article Snippet: To estimate the similarity between the binary FC network of each subject and the group‐aggregated binary SC network, we computed the Pearson correlation R FC − SC and Hamming distance HD FC − SC between these two networks (Enzo Tagliazucchi et al., ).

Techniques:

Journal: Human Brain Mapping

Article Title: Avalanche criticality in individuals, fluid intelligence, and working memory

doi: 10.1002/hbm.25802

Figure Lengend Snippet: The dependence of structure–function coupling on the mean synchronization (MS) of brain networks. (a) Pearson correlation between anatomical and functional networks as a function of MS r . The link density in the functional connectivity (FC) network ρ FC = 0.7 and threshold in the group‐aggregated structure connectivity (SC) network THR SC = 40 (corresponding to ρ SC = 0.4836 ) are shown in the figure. Red dashed line: quadratic fitting ( F = 36.997 , p < .001 , adjusted R 2 = 0.197 ), which is better than linear fitting ( F = 39.346 , p < .001 , adjusted R 2 = 0.115 ). (b) Hamming distance HD FC − SC between anatomical and functional networks as a function of MS r . Red dashed line: quadratic fitting ( F = 36.997 , p < .001 , adjusted R 2 = 0.197 ), which is better than linear fitting ( F = 39.346 , p < .001 , adjusted R 2 = 0.115 ). (c) The Pearson correlation between anatomical and functional networks as a function of FC density ρ FC ( THR SC = 40 corresponding to ρ SC = 0.4826 ) for the high mean synchronization (HMS), moderate mean synchronization (MMS), and low mean synchronization (LMS) groups. (d) The Hamming distance between anatomical and functional networks as a function of FC density ρ FC ( THR SC = 40 corresponding to ρ SC = 0.4826 ) for the HMS, MMS, and LMS groups. In c and d, the stars indicate significant differences between the HMS and MMS groups (two‐tailed two‐sample t ‐test, p < .05 , uncorrected); the open triangles indicate significant differences between the LMS and MMS groups (two‐tailed two‐sample t ‐test, p < .05 , uncorrected)

Article Snippet: To estimate the similarity between the binary FC network of each subject and the group‐aggregated binary SC network, we computed the Pearson correlation R FC − SC and Hamming distance HD FC − SC between these two networks (Enzo Tagliazucchi et al., ).

Techniques: Functional Assay, Two Tailed Test

Journal: Human Brain Mapping

Article Title: Avalanche criticality in individuals, fluid intelligence, and working memory

doi: 10.1002/hbm.25802

Figure Lengend Snippet: The brain map for correlations between regional synchronization entropy (SE) and fluid intelligence. The color bar indicated the Pearson correlation value between regional SE and Penn Matrix Reasoning Test (PMAT). The cortical and subcortical regions were defined by the Human Brainnetome Atlas ( http://atlas.brainnetome.org/bnatlas.html ). Data were visualized using BrainNet Viewer (Xia et al., )

Article Snippet: To estimate the similarity between the binary FC network of each subject and the group‐aggregated binary SC network, we computed the Pearson correlation R FC − SC and Hamming distance HD FC − SC between these two networks (Enzo Tagliazucchi et al., ).

Techniques:

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Avalanche criticality in individuals, fluid intelligence and working memory

doi: 10.1101/2020.08.24.260588

Figure Lengend Snippet: A. Top panel: The inverted-U trajectory of the MS 〈 r 〉 vs. SE H ( r ). The red dash line represents the quadratic fit of the data ( F =188.758, p <0.001, adjusted R 2 =0.561). Bottom panel: The frequency count for the distribution of MS 〈 r 〉. B. The branching parameters σ vs. 〈 r 〉 for each subject. The green dashed line indicates σ = 1. The Pearson correlation value R and the p value are shown in the figure. The red dashed line represents the linear regression. For further analysis, we selected three representative groups of subjects according to their synchronization level: namely, LMS group (〈 r 〉 = 0.2824 ± 0.0219, blue open circles in A and B), MMS group (〈 r 〉 = 0.5041 ± 0.0042, green open circles in A and B) and HMS group (〈 r 〉 = 0.6304 ± 0.0246, red open circles in A and B). C. Avalanche size distributions for the LMS group, MMS group, and HMS group. To show the difference between these groups, we used gray lines with α = 1.47 to guide the eyes. The corresponding group-aggregated branching parameters are σ LMS = 0.7237 for the LMS group, σ MMS = 1.0123 for the MMS group, and σ HMS = 1.2023 for the HMS group. D. Avalanche duration distributions for three groups in C . To show the difference between these groups, we used gray lines with τ = 1.7 to guide the eyes. E. Scaling relations for the three groups. The blue line and purple line correspond to γ and , respectively. In the inset, indicates the distance to the critical point. F. The dependence of κ on the numbers m of histogram bins for the three groups.

Article Snippet: To estimate the similarity between the binary FC network of each subject and the group-aggregated binary SC network, we computed the Pearson correlation R ( FC − SC ) and Hamming distance HD ( FC − SC ) between these two networks (Enzo ).

Techniques:

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Avalanche criticality in individuals, fluid intelligence and working memory

doi: 10.1101/2020.08.24.260588

Figure Lengend Snippet: A. Pearson correlation between anatomical and functional networks as a function of MS 〈 r 〉. The link density in the FC network ρ FC = 0.7 and threshold in the group-aggregated SC network THR SC =40 (corresponding to ρ SC = 0.4836) are shown in the figure. Red dashed line: quadratic fitting ( F = 36.997, p < 0.001, adjusted R 2 = 0.197), which is better than linear fitting ( F = 39.346, p < 0.001, adjusted R 2 = 0.115). B. Hamming distance HD ( FC − SC ) between anatomical and functional networks as a function of MS 〈 r 〉. Red dashed line: quadratic fitting ( F = 36.997, p < 0.001, adjusted R 2 =0.197), which is better than linear fitting ( F = 39.346, p < 0.001, adjusted R 2 = 0.115). C. The Pearson correlation between anatomical and functional networks as a function of FC density ρ FC ( THR SC = 40 corresponding to ρ SC = 0.4826) for the HMS, MMS, and LMS groups. D . The Hamming distance between anatomical and functional networks as a function of FC density ρ FC ( THR SC = 40 corresponding to ρ SC = 0.4826) for the HMS, MMS, and LMS groups. In C-D , the stars indicate significant differences between the HMS and MMS groups (two-tails two-sample t-test, p < 0.05, uncorrected); the open triangles indicate significant differences between the LMS and MMS groups (two-tails two-sample t-test, p < 0.05, uncorrected).

Article Snippet: To estimate the similarity between the binary FC network of each subject and the group-aggregated binary SC network, we computed the Pearson correlation R ( FC − SC ) and Hamming distance HD ( FC − SC ) between these two networks (Enzo ).

Techniques: Functional Assay

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Avalanche criticality in individuals, fluid intelligence and working memory

doi: 10.1101/2020.08.24.260588

Figure Lengend Snippet: The color bar indicated the Pearson correlation value between regional SE and PMAT. The cortical and subcortical regions were defined by the Human Brainnetome Atlas ( http://atlas.brainnetome.org/bnatlas.html ). Data was visualized using BrainNet Viewer .

Article Snippet: To estimate the similarity between the binary FC network of each subject and the group-aggregated binary SC network, we computed the Pearson correlation R ( FC − SC ) and Hamming distance HD ( FC − SC ) between these two networks (Enzo ).

Techniques: