4.6 Article

The Resting Brain: Unconstrained yet Reliable

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 19, Issue 10, Pages 2209-2229

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhn256

Keywords

fMRI; intraclass correlations; reliability; resting-state functional connectivity; test-retest

Categories

Funding

  1. Stavros S. Niarchos Foundation
  2. Leon Lowenstein Foundation
  3. NARSAD (The Mental Health Research Association)
  4. Taubman Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent years have witnessed an upsurge in the usage of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine functional connectivity (fcMRI), both in normal and pathological populations. Despite this increasing popularity, concerns about the psychologically unconstrained nature of the resting-state remain. Across studies, the patterns of functional connectivity detected are remarkably consistent. However, the test-retest reliability for measures of resting state fcMRI measures has not been determined. Here, we quantify the test-retest reliability, using resting scans from 26 participants at 3 different time points. Specifically, we assessed intersession (> 5 months apart), intrasession (< 1 h apart), and multiscan (across all 3 scans) reliability and consistency for both region-of-interest and voxel-wise analyses. For both approaches, we observed modest to high reliability across connections, dependent upon 3 predictive factors: 1) correlation significance (significantly nonzero > nonsignificant), 2) correlation valence (positive > negative), and 3) network membership (default mode > task positive network). Short- and long-term measures of the consistency of global connectivity patterns were highly robust. Finally, hierarchical clustering solutions were highly reproducible, both across participants and sessions. Our findings provide a solid foundation for continued examination of resting state fcMRI in typical and atypical populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available