4.7 Article

Task-evoked functional connectivity does not explain functional connectivity differences between rest and task conditions

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 4939-4948

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.24335

关键词

task evoked functional connectivity; natural vision; spontaneous activity; task-rest interaction

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [UL1 TR001108, TL1 TR001107]
  2. NIH [R01 AG019771, P30 AG010133, R01MH104402]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health
  4. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [TL1TR001107, UL1TR001108] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH104402] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P30AG010133, R01AG019771] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During complex tasks, patterns of functional connectivity differ from those in the resting state. However, what accounts for such differences remains unclear. Brain activity during a task reflects an unknown mixture of spontaneous and task-evoked activities. The difference in functional connectivity between a task state and the resting state may reflect not only task-evoked functional connectivity, but also changes in spontaneously emerging networks. Here, we characterized the differences in apparent functional connectivity between the resting state and when human subjects were watching a naturalistic movie. Such differences were marginally explained by the task-evoked functional connectivity involved in processing the movie content. Instead, they were mostly attributable to changes in spontaneous networks driven by ongoing activity during the task. The execution of the task reduced the correlations in ongoing activity among different cortical networks, especially between the visual and non-visual sensory or motor cortices. Our results suggest that task-evoked activity is not independent from spontaneous activity, and that engaging in a task may suppress spontaneous activity and its inter-regional correlation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据