Co-activation patterns across multiple tasks reveal robust anti-correlated functional networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether antagonistic brain states constitute a fundamental principle of human brain organization has been debated over the past decade. Some argue that intrinsically anti-correlated brain networks in resting-state functional connectivity are an artifact of preprocessing. Others argue that anti-correlations are biologically meaningful predictors of how the brain will respond to different stimuli. Here, we investigated the co-activation patterns across the whole brain in various tasks and test whether brain regions demonstrate anti-correlated activity similar to those observed at rest. We examined brain activity in 47 task contrasts from the Human Connectome Project (N = 680) and found robust antagonistic interactions between networks. Regions of the default network exhibited the highest degree of cortex-wide negative connectivity. The negative co-activation patterns across tasks showed good correspondence to that derived from resting-state data processed with global signal regression (GSR). Interestingly, GSR-processed resting-state data was a significantly better predictor of task-induced modulation than data processed without GSR. Finally, in a cohort of 25 patients with depression, we found that task-based anti-correlations between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex were associated with clinical efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy targeting the DLPFC. Overall, our findings indicate that anti-correlations are a biologically meaningful phenomenon and may reflect an important principle of functional brain organization.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".