In-Scanner Thoughts shape Resting-state Functional Connectivity: how participants “rest” matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) scans-namely those lacking experimentally-controlled stimuli or cognitive demands-are often used to identify aberrant patterns of functional connectivity (FC) in clinical populations. To minimize interpretational uncertainty, researchers control for across-cohort disparities in age, gender, co-morbidities, and head motion. Yet, studies rarely, if ever, consider the possibility that systematic differences in inner experience (i.e., what subjects think and feel during the scan) may directly affect FC measures. Here we demonstrate that is the case using a rs-fMRI dataset comprising 471 scans annotated with experiential data. Wide-spread significant differences in FC are observed between scans that systematically differ in terms of reported in-scanner experience. Additionally, we show that FC can successfully predict specific aspects of in-scanner experience in a manner similar to how it predicts demographics, cognitive abilities, clinical outcomes and labels. Together, these results highlight the key role of in-scanner experience in shaping rs-fMRI estimates of FC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".