Abstract
Objective To investigate whether the Negative BOLD Response (NBR) is more task-specific than the Positive BOLD Response (PBR) during cognitive tasks and to determine whether task-evoked activity reflects brain reconfigurations during different tasks better than functional connectivity.
Methods Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) data were collected from 214 participants under 50 years old (152 in Dataset 1 and 62 in Dataset 2) performing twelve cognitive tasks spanning vocabulary, speed of processing, fluid reasoning, and memory domains. Data analysis included subject-level and group-level analyses, focusing on comparing the spatial patterns and task specificity of NBR and PBR through similarity measures using Dice coefficients. Additionally, functional connectivity was assessed using the Multi-session Hierarchical Bayesian Model (MS-HBM) to evaluate its sensitivity to task-induced brain reconfigurations compared to task-evoked activity.
Results NBR demonstrated significantly greater task specificity compared to PBR across all cognitive tasks, with lower mean Dice coefficients for NBR maps (mean: 0.44, SD: 0.13) than for PBR maps (mean: 0.67, SD: 0.09; t(65) = 18.38, p < 0.001). Functional connectivity analyses indicated that the default mode network (DMN) remained stable across tasks, suggesting that task-evoked activity reflects task-specific brain reconfigurations better than functional connectivity.
Conclusion The findings confirm that NBR is inherently more task-specific than PBR and that task-evoked activity provides a more sensitive measure of task-specific neural reconfigurations than functional connectivity. This enhances our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive processes and highlights the importance of considering NBR in cognitive neuroscience research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) - National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Grants Number R01AG057962 & RF1AG038465.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The data and subsequent studies were approved by two Institutional Review Boards (IRBs): Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, both of which provided ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos