Different Neural Manifestations of Two Slow Frequency Bands in Resting Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systemic Survey at Regional, Interregional, and Network Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal and spectral perspectives are two fundamental facets in deciphering fluctuating signals. In resting state, the dynamics of blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signals recorded by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have been proven to be strikingly informative (0.01-0.1 Hz). The distinction between slow-4 (0.027-0.073 Hz) and slow-5 (0.01-0.027 Hz) has been described, but the pertinent data have never been systematically investigated. This study used fMRI to measure spontaneous brain activity and to explore the different spectral characteristics of slow-4 and slow-5 at regional, interregional, and network levels, respectively assessed by regional homogeneity (ReHo) and mean amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (mALFF), functional connectivity (FC) patterns, and graph theory. Results of paired t-tests supported/replicated recent research dividing low-frequency BOLD fluctuation into slow-4 and slow-5 for ReHo and mALFF. Interregional analyses showed that for brain regions reaching statistical significance, FC strengths at slow-4 were always weaker than those at slow-5. Community detection algorithm was applied to FC data and unveiled two modules sensitive to frequency effects: one comprised sensorimotor structure, and the other encompassed limbic/paralimbic system. Graph theoretical analysis verified that slow-4 and slow-5 differed in local segregation measures. Although the manifestation of frequency differences seemed complicated, the associated brain regions can be grossly categorized into limbic/paralimbic, midline, and sensorimotor systems. Our results suggest that future resting fMRI research addressing the three above systems either from neuropsychiatric or psychological perspectives may consider using spectrum-specific analytical strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".