Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Dynamic Causal Models of Time-Varying Connectivity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Reinterpreting Dynamic Causal Modelling's design matrix as temporal basis functions turns modulatory effects into a spectral expansion of time-varying connectivity.

desk verdict Useful incremental DCM extension with honest self-consistency validation; needs an out-of-basis test before the recovery claim is fully credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16582 v2 pith:CG3Y4Q4P submitted 2024-11-25 q-bio.NC physics.bio-phstat.AP

Johan Medrano , Karl J. Friston , Peter Zeidman This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCphysics.bio-phstat.AP
keywords time-varyingconnectivitydynamiccausalmodellingGaussianprocesstemporalbasisfunctionsspectralexpansioneffectiveOPM-MEGrovingoddball
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that Dynamic Causal Modelling, a Bayesian framework for estimating the directed influence between brain regions, can track slow changes in those influences without changing its estimation machinery. The trick is to read the design matrix as a set of temporal basis functions evaluated at the midpoint of each time bin; then the modulatory-effect matrices that DCM already estimates become coefficients in a spectral expansion of the connectivity trajectory. Because those matrices are Gaussian, the trajectory is a matrix-valued Gaussian process with an explicit mean and covariance, so one inversion returns a whole posterior distribution over connectivity over time. The authors support this with simulations of two coupled cortical regions, for both evoked and spectral responses, and with an OPM-MEG auditory roving oddball dataset, where a transient loss of self-inhibition in primary auditory cortex at deviant onset resolves over the stimulus sequence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the DCM design matrix $X$, re-read as a temporal basis set: each column is a basis function evaluated at the mid-time of each epoch, and each modulatory matrix $B_m$ weights one basis function. This is what turns a model of condition-specific effects into a model of slow parameter trajectories, with the Fourier or cosine case making the spectral-expansion interpretation explicit. The Gaussian distribution over the $B_m$ matrices then makes the connectivity a Gaussian process, whose posterior mean and covariance are obtained by projecting the modulatory-effect posterior through the basis set.

What would settle it

Simulate an experiment in which the true effective connectivity changes abruptly, for example as a step change or a fluctuation above the basis order's Nyquist frequency, then invert the model with a low-order cosine design matrix and inspect whether the posterior trajectory tracks the ground truth; failure to do so would confirm that the method recovers only the band-limited component of connectivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that time-varying effective connectivity can be written as $E_c(t)=A_c+\sum_{m=1}^{M}B_mX_m(t)$, where $X_m(t)$ are temporal basis functions and $B_m$ are the modulatory matrices that DCM already estimates. Since the modulatory effects have Gaussian priors, the implied trajectory is a matrix-valued Gaussian process, and estimating the $B_m$ via standard variational inversion yields a posterior distribution of connectivity at every time point. The basis order controls the fastest allowed fluctuation, making the model an explicit band-limited prior; with Fourier or cosine bases, this is precisely the spectral expansion of the trajectory. Simulations on evoked and spectral responses from two canonical microcircuit regions show the recovered mean tracks the simulated trajectory, and the roving-oddball application reveals a transient decrease of self-inhibition in primary auditory cortex after deviant onset that subsides over repeated stimulus presentation.

Load-bearing premise

The method's load-bearing assumption is that the chosen temporal basis functions can express the true connectivity trajectory; the paper itself notes that the basis set determines what trajectories can be expressed and restricts the real-data analysis to fluctuations below 0.55 Hz, so any faster or non-smooth change in connectivity lies outside what this model can recover.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one inversion, users obtain a posterior distribution over the full temporal trajectory of each modulated connection, rather than a set of per-window estimates.
  • The trajectory is a Gaussian process, so it can be passed to hierarchical Bayesian models such as parametric empirical Bayes for group-level analysis.
  • Free-energy comparison gives a principled way to choose the basis set and its order, and to test whether connectivity fluctuates at all by comparing against a static model.
  • Because the approach uses the existing modulatory mechanism, it applies to most DCM variants and modalities, including fMRI, with slower timescales.
  • The number of parameters scales with basis order rather than number of time points, giving better statistical efficiency than window-by-window methods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same logic invites second-level designs in which connectivity trajectories are contrasted across groups or conditions; the paper sketches this possibility with Kronecker-product designs but does not demonstrate it on data.
  • Because the recovered trajectory is band-limited by the basis order, apparent connectivity dynamics in resting-state data will depend on the chosen basis; model comparison across orders could separate genuine synaptic modulation from slow artefacts, a test the paper leaves for future work.
  • The spectral-coefficient reading suggests a natural coupling to time-frequency DCMs, where the same basis expansion could parameterize how oscillatory power drifts over time; this is not implemented in the present paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an extension of Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) to time-varying effective connectivity. The authors define the connectivity trajectory as a linear combination of temporal basis functions via the standard modulatory B-matrix mechanism, so that the modulatory weights provide a spectral expansion of the trajectory and the whole time course is treated as a matrix-valued Gaussian process (Eqs. 3-6). The method is validated with simulations of evoked and spectral responses using a two-region canonical microcircuit model, and applied to an OPM-MEG auditory roving oddball experiment, where a 5th-order cosine basis is used to estimate connectivity fluctuations between 0.11 and 0.55 Hz. The paper discusses design choices, connections to parametric empirical Bayes, and computational efficiency.

Significance. The methodological idea is simple and natural: it reuses the existing DCM modulatory mechanism and turns the design matrix into a temporal basis, thereby avoiding bespoke algorithmic changes. If the approach is robust, it offers a computationally efficient middle ground between fixed-shape regressors and adiabatic DCM, with potential applications across EEG, MEG, and fMRI. The derivation of the Gaussian-process representation (Eqs. 3-6) is correct and transparent, and the availability of SPM demo code is a practical strength. However, the current evidence is internal: simulations use the same model family for generation and inversion, the recovery assessment is visual and qualitative, and the real-data results are limited to a single subject and a narrow frequency band. The significance of the contribution is therefore conditional on additional validation under model misspecification and on quantitative recovery metrics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, Numerical validation (Simulation setup)] The validation is a matched-model exercise: the data are generated with the DCM modulatory mechanism and inverted with a model whose design matrix is a sixth-order cosine set, and no attempt is made to assess what happens when the true trajectory is outside the span of that basis. The paper itself states in the 'Technical details' section that the basis functions determine the type of trajectory that can be expressed, but it never tests the consequences of this limitation. This matters because the empirical trajectory in the Application section is interpreted as reflecting true connectivity dynamics, whereas any misspecified component with spectral content outside 0.11-0.55 Hz would be projected onto the basis and could create spurious structure. I request at least one simulation in which the true time-varying connectivity is not representable by the estimation basis (e.g., a step function or a higher-frequency oscillation) and a quantitative report of recovery error (e.g., mean squared error or correlation between true and estimated posterior mean) for both in-basis and out-of-basis conditions.
  2. [Results, Numerical validation (Evoked responses; Spectral responses)] The recovery results are assessed only qualitatively, by visual inspection of Figures 1.C and 2.C. There is no quantitative summary of how well the posterior mean tracks the generative trajectory or whether the posterior intervals have appropriate coverage, and there is no comparison against existing approaches such as adiabatic DCM or the fixed design-matrix method of Auksztulewicz and Friston (2016). Because the paper positions the method as a middle ground between constrained and over-parameterized alternatives, a quantitative comparison is directly relevant to the central claim of recovering time-varying connectivity. Please add numerical recovery metrics for the simulations and, if feasible, a model comparison or recovery comparison against at least one alternative method.
  3. [Application, Model specification and Results] The band-limited nature of the empirical analysis is stated explicitly: the fifth-order cosine set restricts fluctuations to 0.11-0.55 Hz and the Nyquist criterion prevents analysis of faster fluctuations. As a result, the estimated trajectory in Figure 3 is a projection of the true (unknown) trajectory onto a low-dimensional cosine basis, and interpretations such as a 'negative gain ... at the onset of the oddball, returning to a small positive value' are conditional on that basis. The manuscript should either temper these interpretive statements or provide model evidence comparisons (e.g., free-energy comparison against a no-modulation model or against a higher-order basis) to support the claim that the temporal modulation is present in the data rather than an artifact of the chosen basis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The Introduction contains several grammatical errors, e.g., 'slow fluctuations changes in neural activity and confounds neuronal coupling will are expected to impact' and 'buildinggenerative models'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Results, Evoked responses] In the sentence following Figure 1, 'We also note that the model to recover the first and last 0.5 seconds for the self-inhibition of superficial pyramidal neurons in region 1' appears to be missing a word; the text likely means 'failed to recover' or 'was unable to recover'.
  3. [Technical details] The notation in Eq. (1) uses condition index k, while Eq. (3) switches to time t without explicitly defining how the design matrix rows are constructed from epoch mid-times; a brief notational clarification would help.
  4. [Application, Results] The statement that 'the interval between stimuli is too large to analyse these fluctuations – following the Nyquist criterion' is slightly confusing because the Nyquist criterion concerns sampling rate rather than interval length; please rephrase to clarify that the inter-stimulus interval limits the resolvable frequency range.
  5. [Discussion, Design choices] The claim that log-Bayes factors computed from free-energy differences are 'guaranteed to be always equivalent to the most powerful test across all levels of sensitivity' is strong and would benefit from a qualification or a more careful citation, as stated it could be misleading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the method is a direct application of DCM's modulatory mechanism, and the acknowledged basis-expressivity limitation is a testable assumption, not a circular premise.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The paper takes the existing DCM modulatory equation, Ec(k) = Ac + sum_m Bm Xkm (Eq. 1), and re-reads it as a time-varying expression Ec(t) = Ac + sum_m Bm Xm(t) (Eq. 3). This is an explicit reformulation, not a hidden identification: the modulatory matrices Bm are defined as the weights of the temporal basis functions, and estimating them from data is a standard DCM inversion. The claim that the modulatory effects capture a spectral expansion is a mathematical identity following from the basis expansion, not a prediction forced by fitted values. The simulation sections are explicitly labeled 'face validity' and only claim recovery of the trajectory used to generate the data within the same DCM framework; this is an internal consistency check rather than an independent prediction, and the paper does not misrepresent it as more. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the key limitation: 'The temporal basis functions that compose the design matrix determine the type of trajectory that can be expressed, as well as the covariance structure over time' (Technical details). This makes the basis-expressivity assumption a stated, testable modeling choice, and the Discussion offers free-energy model comparison for selecting basis sets and orders. Self-citations to DCM, PEB, and the authors' prior generative-model work are used as background methodology, not as a uniqueness theorem or to rule out alternatives. The real-data application uses externally published OPM-MEG data (Mellor et al., 2023) and open-source SPM code, providing independent anchors. No circular step is present; the main limitation is the absence of an out-of-basis misspecification stress test, which is a robustness concern rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the DCM framework and the chosen temporal basis parameterization; the main free parameters are the basis order and epoch configuration. No new unobserved entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Basis set order = 5th order (real data), 6th order (simulations)
    Chosen by the authors, not fitted; determines the expressivity of the time-varying connectivity trajectory. The paper discusses model comparison via free energy but does not perform it in the presented results.
  • Number of time bins = 16 in simulations; 0.5s intervals in real data
    Chosen for the experiments; affects the temporal resolution of the recovered connectivity.
  • Peristimulus window = 500ms in real data
    Chosen based on the evoked response paradigm; it bounds the timescale of modeled dynamics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Separation of temporal scales: the real parts of Lyapunov exponents of the NMMs are at least an order of magnitude more negative than those of the synaptic connectivity dynamics.
    Introduced in 'Empirical motivations' to justify treating connectivity as slowly varying relative to fast neuronal dynamics.
  • domain assumption Connectivity is constant within each time bin, with the trajectory evaluated at bin mid-times.
    The design matrix rows evaluate basis functions at the mid-time tk of each epoch, discretizing the trajectory.
  • domain assumption The chosen temporal basis set spans the true connectivity fluctuations (band-limited assumption).
    The method can only express trajectories within the chosen basis; this is acknowledged as a design choice in 'Discussion'.
  • domain assumption Modulatory effects B are normally distributed, yielding the Gaussian process interpretation.
    This is the standard DCM prior on B matrices, invoked in 'Technical details'.
  • domain assumption The variational Bayes (Laplace) approximation provides accurate posterior estimates for these nonlinear models.
    The paper relies on standard DCM inversion; it notes 'brittle' DCMs can produce inconsistent results, so this is an assumption.
  • domain assumption The observed LFP/MEG signals are generated by the mean membrane potential of superficial pyramidal neurons.
    Standard DCM assumption, used in the models of evoked responses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Causal Models of Time-Varying Connectivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CG3Y4Q4P

@misc{pith2026241116582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Causal Models of Time-Varying Connectivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CG3Y4Q4P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16582}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a novel approach for modelling time-varying connectivity in neuroimaging data, focusing on the slow fluctuations in synaptic efficacy that mediate neuronal dynamics. Building on the framework of Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM), we propose a method that incorporates temporal basis functions into neural models, allowing for the explicit representation of slow parameter changes. This approach balances expressivity and computational efficiency by modelling these fluctuations as a Gaussian process, offering a middle ground between existing methods that either strongly constrain or excessively relax parameter fluctuations. We validate the ensuing model through simulations and real data from an auditory roving oddball paradigm, demonstrating its potential to explain key aspects of brain dynamics. This work aims to equip researchers with a robust tool for investigating time-varying connectivity, particularly in the context of synaptic modulation and its role in both healthy and pathological brain function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Face validity of time-varying connectivity model for evoked responses. A. Simulation setup consisting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Face validity of time-varying connectivity model for spectral responses. A. Simulation setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Application of DCM of time-varying connectivity to OPM-MEG data from an auditory roving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abraham, W. C. and Bear, M. F. (1996). Metaplasticity: the plasticity of synaptic plasticity. Trends in neurosciences , 19(4):126--130

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    A., and Brown, E

    Adam, E., Kwon, O., Montejo, K. A., and Brown, E. N. (2023). Modulatory dynamics mark the transition between anesthetic states of unconsciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 120(30):e2300058120

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    and Friston, K

    Auksztulewicz, R. and Friston, K. (2016). Repetition suppression and its contextual determinants in predictive coding. cortex , 80:125--140

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    S., Wymbs, N

    Bassett, D. S., Wymbs, N. F., Porter, M. A., Mucha, P. J., Carlson, J. M., and Grafton, S. T. (2011). Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108(18):7641--7646

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    M., Litvak, V., Moran, R., Bosman, C

    Bastos, A. M., Litvak, V., Moran, R., Bosman, C. A., Fries, P., and Friston, K. J. (2015). A dcm study of spectral asymmetries in feedforward and feedback connections between visual areas v1 and v4 in the monkey. Neuroimage , 108:460--475

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    M., Usrey, W

    Bastos, A. M., Usrey, W. M., Adams, R. A., Mangun, G. R., Fries, P., and Friston, K. J. (2012). Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron , 76(4):695--711

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    A., Terry, J

    Breakspear, M., Roberts, J. A., Terry, J. R., Rodrigues, S., Mahant, N., and Robinson, P. A. (2006). A unifying explanation of primary generalized seizures through nonlinear brain modeling and bifurcation analysis. Cerebral Cortex , 16(9):1296--1313

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Brown, H. R. and Friston, K. J. (2013). The functional anatomy of attention: a dcm study. Frontiers in human neuroscience , 7:784

    work page 2013

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Carr, J. (1981). Applications of centre manifold theory , volume 35. Springer Science & Business Media

    1981

  2. [10]

    and Brown, E

    Ching, S. and Brown, E. N. (2014). Modeling the dynamical effects of anesthesia on brain circuits. Current opinion in neurobiology , 25:116--122

    2014

  3. [11]

    and Malenka, R

    Citri, A. and Malenka, R. C. (2008). Synaptic plasticity: multiple forms, functions, and mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology , 33(1):18--41

    2008

  4. [12]

    David, O., Harrison, L., and Friston, K. J. (2005). Modelling event-related responses in the brain. NeuroImage , 25(3):756--770

    2005

  5. [13]

    Fowlie, A. (2023). Neyman--pearson lemma for bayes factors. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods , 52(15):5379--5386

    2023

  6. [14]

    Friston, K. (2008). Hierarchical models in the brain. PLoS computational biology , 4(11):e1000211

    2008

  7. [15]

    J., Bastos, A., Litvak, V., Stephan, K

    Friston, K. J., Bastos, A., Litvak, V., Stephan, K. E., Fries, P., and Moran, R. J. (2012a). Dcm for complex-valued data: cross-spectra, coherence and phase-delays. Neuroimage , 59(1):439--455

    2012

  8. [16]

    J., Harrison, L., and Penny, W

    Friston, K. J., Harrison, L., and Penny, W. (2003). Dynamic causal modelling. Neuroimage , 19(4):1273--1302

    2003

  9. [17]

    J., Litvak, V., Oswal, A., Razi, A., Stephan, K

    Friston, K. J., Litvak, V., Oswal, A., Razi, A., Stephan, K. E., Van Wijk, B. C., Ziegler, G., and Zeidman, P. (2016). Bayesian model reduction and empirical bayes for group (dcm) studies. Neuroimage , 128:413--431

    2016

  10. [18]

    J., Shiner, T., FitzGerald, T., Galea, J

    Friston, K. J., Shiner, T., FitzGerald, T., Galea, J. M., Adams, R., Brown, H., Dolan, R. J., Moran, R., Stephan, K. E., and Bestmann, S. (2012b). Dopamine, affordance and active inference. PLoS computational biology , 8(1):e1002327

    2012

  11. [19]

    I., Friston, K

    Garrido, M. I., Friston, K. J., Kiebel, S. J., Stephan, K. E., Baldeweg, T., and Kilner, J. M. (2008). The functional anatomy of the mmn: a dcm study of the roving paradigm. Neuroimage , 42(2):936--944

    2008

  12. [20]

    Haken, H. (1977). Synergetics. Physics Bulletin , 28(9):412

    1977

  13. [21]

    Haken, H. (2006). Synergetics of brain function. International journal of psychophysiology , 60(2):110--124

    2006

  14. [22]

    M., Womelsdorf, T., Allen, E

    Hutchison, R. M., Womelsdorf, T., Allen, E. A., Bandettini, P. A., Calhoun, V. D., Corbetta, M., Della Penna, S., Duyn, J. H., Glover, G. H., Gonzalez-Castillo, J., et al. (2013). Dynamic functional connectivity: promise, issues, and interpretations. Neuroimage , 80:360--378

    2013

  15. [23]

    C., Walker, M., and Friston, K

    Jafarian, A., Zeidman, P., Wykes, R. C., Walker, M., and Friston, K. J. (2021). Adiabatic dynamic causal modelling. NeuroImage , 238:118243

    2021

  16. [24]

    Jansen, B. H. and Rit, V. G. (1995). Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns. Biological cybernetics , 73(4):357--366

    1995

  17. [25]

    Jefferys, J. (1995). Nonsynaptic modulation of neuronal activity in the brain: electric currents and extracellular ions. Physiological reviews , 75(4):689--723

    1995

  18. [26]

    K., Stacey, W

    Jirsa, V. K., Stacey, W. C., Quilichini, P. P., Ivanov, A. I., and Bernard, C. (2014). On the nature of seizure dynamics. Brain , 137(8):2210--2230

    2014

  19. [27]

    J., Garrido, M

    Kiebel, S. J., Garrido, M. I., Moran, R. J., and Friston, K. J. (2008). Dynamic causal modelling for eeg and meg. Cognitive neurodynamics , 2:121--136

    2008

  20. [28]

    Lomb, N. R. (1976). Least-squares frequency analysis of unequally spaced data. Astrophysics and space science , 39:447--462

    1976

  21. [29]

    Magee, J. C. and Grienberger, C. (2020). Synaptic plasticity forms and functions. Annual review of neuroscience , 43(1):95--117

    2020

  22. [30]

    A., Seymour, R

    Medrano, J., Alexander, N. A., Seymour, R. A., and Zeidman, P. (2024a). Bsd: a bayesian framework for parametric models of neural spectra. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20896

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Medrano, J., Friston, K., and Zeidman, P. (2024b). Linking fast and slow: The case for generative models. Network Neuroscience , 8(1):24--43

    2024

  24. [32]

    M., Seymour, R

    Mellor, S., Tierney, T. M., Seymour, R. A., Timms, R. C., O'Neill, G. C., Alexander, N., Spedden, M. E., Payne, H., and Barnes, G. R. (2023). Real-time, model-based magnetic field correction for moving, wearable meg. NeuroImage , 278:120252

    2023

  25. [33]

    A., and Friston, K

    Moran, R., Pinotsis, D. A., and Friston, K. (2013a). Neural masses and fields in dynamic causal modeling. Frontiers in computational neuroscience , 7:57

    2013

  26. [34]

    J., Campo, P., Symmonds, M., Stephan, K

    Moran, R. J., Campo, P., Symmonds, M., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., and Friston, K. J. (2013b). Free energy, precision and learning: the role of cholinergic neuromodulation. Journal of Neuroscience , 33(19):8227--8236

    2013

  27. [35]

    J., Stephan, K

    Moran, R. J., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., and Friston, K. J. (2011). Consistent spectral predictors for dynamic causal models of steady-state responses. Neuroimage , 55(4):1694--1708

    2011

  28. [36]

    J., Stephan, K

    Moran, R. J., Stephan, K. E., Seidenbecher, T., Pape, H.-C., Dolan, R. J., and Friston, K. J. (2009). Dynamic causal models of steady-state responses. Neuroimage , 44(3):796--811

    2009

  29. [37]

    and Pearson, E

    Neyman, J. and Pearson, E. S. (1933). Ix. on the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character , 231(694-706):289--337

    1933

  30. [38]

    Papadopoulou, M., Leite, M., van Mierlo, P., Vonck, K., Lemieux, L., Friston, K., and Marinazzo, D. (2015). Tracking slow modulations in synaptic gain using dynamic causal modelling: validation in epilepsy. Neuroimage , 107:117--126

    2015

  31. [39]

    E., Hunter, P

    Rosch, R. E., Hunter, P. R., Baldeweg, T., Friston, K. J., and Meyer, M. P. (2018). Calcium imaging and dynamic causal modelling reveal brain-wide changes in effective connectivity and synaptic dynamics during epileptic seizures. PLoS computational biology , 14(8):e1006375

    2018

  32. [40]

    Scargle, J. D. (1982). Studies in astronomical time series analysis. ii-statistical aspects of spectral analysis of unevenly spaced data. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 263, Dec. 15, 1982, p. 835-853. , 263:835--853

    1982

  33. [41]

    A., Alexander, N., Mellor, S., O'Neill, G

    Seymour, R. A., Alexander, N., Mellor, S., O'Neill, G. C., Tierney, T. M., Barnes, G. R., and Maguire, E. A. (2021). Using opms to measure neural activity in standing, mobile participants. NeuroImage , 244:118604

    2021

  34. [42]

    E., Adam, E., Brown, E

    Soplata, A. E., Adam, E., Brown, E. N., Purdon, P. L., McCarthy, M. M., and Kopell, N. (2023). Rapid thalamocortical network switching mediated by cortical synchronization underlies propofol-induced eeg signatures: a biophysical model. Journal of Neurophysiology , 130(1):86--103

    2023

  35. [43]

    VanderPlas, J. T. (2018). Understanding the lomb--scargle periodogram. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , 236(1):16

    2018

  36. [44]

    J., Alfaro-Almagro, F., Smith, S

    Vidaurre, D., Abeysuriya, R., Becker, R., Quinn, A. J., Alfaro-Almagro, F., Smith, S. M., and Woolrich, M. W. (2018). Discovering dynamic brain networks from big data in rest and task. NeuroImage , 180:646--656

    2018

  37. [45]

    Wendling, F., Benquet, P., Bartolomei, F., and Jirsa, V. (2016). Computational models of epileptiform activity. Journal of neuroscience methods , 260:233--251

    2016

  38. [46]

    Zarghami, T. S. and Friston, K. J. (2020). Dynamic effective connectivity. Neuroimage , 207:116453

    2020

  39. [47]

    L., Litvak, V., Cagnan, H., Price, C

    Zeidman, P., Jafarian, A., Seghier, M. L., Litvak, V., Cagnan, H., Price, C. J., and Friston, K. J. (2019). A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with peb. Neuroimage , 200:12--25

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.