Intrinsic Frequencies of the Resting-State fMRI Signal: The Frequency Dependence of Functional Connectivity and the Effect of Mode Mixing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency characteristics of the resting-state BOLD fMRI (rs-fMRI) signal are of increasing scientific interest, as we discover more frequency-specific biological interpretations. In this work, we use variational mode decomposition (VMD) to precisely decompose the rs-fMRI time series into its intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) in a data-driven manner. The accuracy of the VMD decomposition of constituent IMFs is verified through simulations, with higher reconstruction accuracy and much-reduced mode mixing relative to previous methods. Furthermore, we examine the relative contribution of the VMD-derived modes (frequencies) to the rs-fMRI signal as well as functional connectivity measurements. Our primary findings are: (1) The rs-fMRI signal within the 0.01-0.25 Hz range can be consistently characterized by four intrinsic frequency clusters, centered at 0.028 Hz (IMF4), 0.080 Hz (IMF3), 0.15 Hz (IMF2) and 0.22 Hz (IMF1); (2) these frequency clusters were highly reproducible, and independent of rs-fMRI data sampling rate; (3) not all frequencies were associated with equivalent network topology, in contrast to previous findings. In fact, while IMF4 is most likely associated with physiological fluctuations due to respiration and pulse, IMF3 is most likely associated with metabolic processes, and IMF2 with vasomotor activity. Both IMF3 and IMF4 could produce the brain-network topology typically observed in fMRI, whereas IMF1 and IMF2 could not. These findings provide initial evidence of feasibility in decomposing the rs-fMRI signal into its intrinsic oscillatory frequencies in a reproducible manner.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".