Using spatial multiple regression to identify intrinsic connectivity networks involved in working memory performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers have noted that the functional architecture of the human brain is relatively invariant during task performance and the resting state. Indeed, intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) revealed by resting-state functional connectivity analyses are spatially similar to regions activated during cognitive tasks. This suggests that patterns of task-related activation in individual subjects may result from the engagement of one or more of these ICNs; however, this has not been tested. We used a novel analysis, spatial multiple regression, to test whether the patterns of activation during an N-back working memory task could be well described by a linear combination of ICNs delineated using Independent Components Analysis at rest. We found that across subjects, the cingulo-opercular Set Maintenance ICN, as well as right and left Frontoparietal Control ICNs, were reliably activated during working memory, while Default Mode and Visual ICNs were reliably deactivated. Further, involvement of Set Maintenance, Frontoparietal Control, and Dorsal Attention ICNs was sensitive to varying working memory load. Finally, the degree of left Frontoparietal Control network activation predicted response speed, while activation in both left Frontoparietal Control and Dorsal Attention networks predicted task accuracy. These results suggest that a close relationship between resting-state networks and task-evoked activation is functionally relevant for behavior, and that spatial multiple regression analysis is a suitable method for revealing that relationship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".