Exploring the Interplay between BOLD Signal Variability, Complexity, and Static and Dynamic Functional Brain Network Features during Movie Viewing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the brain is dynamic and complex, knowledge of brain signal variability and complexity is crucial in our understanding of brain function. Recent resting-fMRI studies revealed links between BOLD signal variability or complexity with static/dynamics features of functional brain networks (FBN). However, no study has examined the relationships between these brain metrics. The association between brain signal variability and complexity is still understudied. Here we investigated the association between movie naturalistic-fMRI BOLD signal variability/complexity and static/dynamic FBN features using graph theory analysis. We found that variability positively correlated with fine-scale complexity but negatively correlated with coarse-scale complexity. Hence, variability and coarse-scale complexity correlated with static FC oppositely. Specifically, regions with high centrality and clustering coefficient were related to less variable but more complex signal. Similar relationship persisted for dynamic FBN, but the associations with certain aspects of regional centrality dynamics became insignificant. Our findings demonstrate that the relationship between BOLD signal variability, static/dynamic FBN with BOLD signal complexity depends on the temporal scale of signal complexity. Additionally, altered correlation between variability and complexity with dynamic FBN features may indicate the complex, time-varying feature of FBN and reflect how BOLD signal variability and complexity co-evolve with dynamic FBN over time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".