2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116157
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

40
453
1
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 478 publications
(496 citation statements)
references
References 130 publications
40
453
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…To enable the inclusion of a greater number of individuals with the rare condition ICA, data was collected at two different locations. The use of multiple sites has been reported to have minimal effects on the reliability of functional connectivity, but uncontrolled differences across sites may potentially introduce bias (Noble et al 2019). Thus, efforts were made to minimize the effects of scanning site: 3T Siemens scanners with identical scanning sequence protocols were used at both sites, site was included as a nuisance covariate in the analyses, and importantly, the matched control was always scanned at the same site as the individual with ICA, thus preventing inter-group effects of scanning site.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To enable the inclusion of a greater number of individuals with the rare condition ICA, data was collected at two different locations. The use of multiple sites has been reported to have minimal effects on the reliability of functional connectivity, but uncontrolled differences across sites may potentially introduce bias (Noble et al 2019). Thus, efforts were made to minimize the effects of scanning site: 3T Siemens scanners with identical scanning sequence protocols were used at both sites, site was included as a nuisance covariate in the analyses, and importantly, the matched control was always scanned at the same site as the individual with ICA, thus preventing inter-group effects of scanning site.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Particularly, the latest study by Burr et al (2020) used the largest sample up to date (N = 1316) in a data-driven, theory-free approach and found that intrinsic connectivity of the default mode network was associated with dispositional use of suppression (but not reappraisal). Critically, the authors used general functional connectivity (GFC, Elliott et al, 2019) to leverage shared features of task and resting-state fMRI and circumvent reported reliability issues of resting state measures (e.g., Noble, Scheinost, & Constable, 2019) . Thus, instead of focusing on connectivity in a priori regions of interest between cortical and subcortical areas, distributed networks of brain regions might be a more promising target in future studies as they take into account the complexity of the underlying neuronal processes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Test-retest reliability is often used as a measure for reproducibility and generalizability. Although graph measures, such as global efficiency and Gcc, show fair-to-good testretest reliability (Welton et al 2015), a recent meta-analysis showed that edges within a functional connectivity matrix -on the basis of which graph measures are calculated -show poor test-retest reliability (Noble et al 2019). This low test-retest reliability influences statistical power and necessitates the inclusion of larger samples to reach the effect size of interest (Matheson 2019;Zuo et al 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This low test-retest reliability influences statistical power and necessitates the inclusion of larger samples to reach the effect size of interest (Matheson 2019;Zuo et al 2019). It is, however, important to note that test-retest reliability is not the same as validity and the meta-analysis showed that one of the main factors that influenced test-retest reliability was artefact correction (Noble et al 2019); a necessary step during preprocessing to remove motion and other non-neural physiological noise from the data and avoid spurious results (Parkes et al 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation