The Importance of Being Variable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New work suggests that blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal variability can be a much more powerful index of human age than mean activation, and that older brains are actually less variable than younger brains. However, little is known of how BOLD variability and task performance may relate. In the current study, we examined BOLD variability in relation to age, and reaction time speed and consistency in healthy younger (20-30 years) and older (56-85 years) adults on three cognitive tasks (perceptual matching, attentional cueing, and delayed match-to-sample). Results indicated that younger, faster, and more consistent performers exhibited significantly higher brain variability across tasks, and showed greater variability-based regional differentiation compared with older, poorer-performing adults. Also, when we compared brain variability- and typical mean-based effects, the respective spatial patterns were essentially orthogonal across brain measures, and any regions that did overlap were largely opposite in directionality of effect. These findings help establish the functional basis of BOLD variability, and further support the statistical and spatial differentiation between BOLD variability and BOLD mean. We thus argue that the precise nature of relations between aging, cognition, and brain function is underappreciated by using mean-based brain measures exclusively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".