Minimal Variation in Functional Connectivity in Relation to Daily Affect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reported associations between functional connectivity and affective disorder symptoms are minimally reproducible, which can partially be attributed to difficulty capturing highly variable clinical symptoms in cross-sectional study designs. "Dense sampling" protocols, where participants are sampled across multiple sessions, can overcome this limitation by studying associations between functional connectivity and variable clinical states. Here, we characterized effect sizes for the association between functional connectivity and time-varying positive and negative daily affect in a nonclinical cohort. Data were analyzed from 24 adults who attended four research visits, where participants self-reported daily affect using the PANAS-X questionnaire and completed 39 min of functional magnetic resonance imaging across three passive viewing conditions. We modeled positive and negative daily affect in relation to network-level functional connectivity, with hypotheses regarding within-network connectivity of the default mode, salience/cingulo-opercular, frontoparietal, dorsal attention, and visual networks and between-network connectivity of affective subcortical regions (amygdala and nucleus accumbens) with both default mode and salience/cingulo-opercular networks. Effect sizes for associations between affect and network-level functional connectivity were small and nonsignificant across analyses. We additionally report that functional connectivity variance is largely attributable to individual identity with small relative variance (<3%) accounted for by within-subject daily affect variation. These results support previous reports that functional connectivity is dominated by stable subject-specific connectivity patterns, while additionally suggesting relatively minimal influence of day-to-day affect. Researchers planning studies examining functional connectivity in relation to daily affect, or other varying stable states, should therefore anticipate small effect sizes and carefully consider power in study planning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".