pearson correlations Search Results


unpaired student’s t-test and linear regression with pearson correlation graphpad prism version 7  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc unpaired student’s t-test and linear regression with pearson correlation graphpad prism version 7
Unpaired Student’s T Test And Linear Regression With Pearson Correlation Graphpad Prism Version 7, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/unpaired student’s t-test and linear regression with pearson correlation graphpad prism version 7/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
unpaired student’s t-test and linear regression with pearson correlation graphpad prism version 7 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson correlation r 2  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc pearson correlation r 2
Pearson Correlation R 2, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson correlation r 2/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson correlation r 2 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson’s r correlation graphpad 7.0  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc pearson’s r correlation graphpad 7.0
Pearson’s R Correlation Graphpad 7.0, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson’s r correlation graphpad 7.0/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson’s r correlation graphpad 7.0 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson’s correlation coefficient  (QUALISYS LIMITED)
90
QUALISYS LIMITED pearson’s correlation coefficient
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, supplied by QUALISYS LIMITED, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson’s correlation coefficient/product/QUALISYS LIMITED
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson’s correlation coefficient - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson correlation r ( fc − sc)  (Enzo Biochem)
90
Enzo Biochem pearson correlation r ( fc − sc)
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Pearson Correlation R ( Fc − Sc), supplied by Enzo Biochem, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson correlation r ( fc − sc)/product/Enzo Biochem
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson correlation r ( fc − sc) - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
squared pearson correlation method  (SAS institute)
90
SAS institute squared pearson correlation method
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Squared Pearson Correlation Method, supplied by SAS institute, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/squared pearson correlation method/product/SAS institute
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
squared pearson correlation method - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson’s correlation test graphpad prism version 5.01  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc pearson’s correlation test graphpad prism version 5.01
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Pearson’s Correlation Test Graphpad Prism Version 5.01, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson’s correlation test graphpad prism version 5.01/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson’s correlation test graphpad prism version 5.01 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
correlogram analysis  (Federation of European Neuroscience Societies)
90
Federation of European Neuroscience Societies correlogram analysis
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Correlogram Analysis, supplied by Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/correlogram analysis/product/Federation of European Neuroscience Societies
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
correlogram analysis - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
two-tailed pearson correlation coefficient  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc two-tailed pearson correlation coefficient
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Two Tailed Pearson Correlation Coefficient, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/two-tailed pearson correlation coefficient/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
two-tailed pearson correlation coefficient - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson correlation coefficients  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc pearson correlation coefficients
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Pearson Correlation Coefficients, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson correlation coefficients/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson correlation coefficients - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson correlation test  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc pearson correlation test
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Pearson Correlation Test, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson correlation test/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson correlation test - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pearson correlation assay  (GraphPad Software Inc)
90
GraphPad Software Inc pearson correlation assay
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 <t>Pearson</t> 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.
Pearson Correlation Assay, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pearson correlation assay/product/GraphPad Software Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pearson correlation assay - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


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.

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:

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).

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

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 .

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: