No abstract

SummaryData analysis workflows in many scientific domains have become increasingly complex and flexible. To assess the impact of this flexibility on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) results, the same dataset was independently analyzed by 70 teams, testing nine ex-ante hypotheses. The flexibility of analytic approaches is exemplified by the fact that no two teams chose identical workflows to analyze the data. This flexibility resulted in sizeable variation in hypothesis test results, even for teams whose statistical maps were highly correlated at intermediate stages of their analysis pipeline. Variation in reported results was related to several aspects of analysis methodology. Importantly, meta-analytic approaches that aggregated information across teams yielded significant consensus in activated regions across teams. Furthermore, prediction markets of researchers in the field revealed an overestimation of the likelihood of significant findings, even by researchers with direct knowledge of the dataset. Our findings show that analytic flexibility can have substantial effects on scientific conclusions, and demonstrate factors related to variability in fMRI. The results emphasize the importance of validating and sharing complex analysis workflows, and demonstrate the need for multiple analyses of the same data. Potential approaches to mitigate issues related to analytical variability are discussed.

Previous work showed that two types of slow waves are temporally dissociated during the transition to sleep: widespread, large and steep slow waves predominate early in the falling asleep period (type I), while smaller, more circumscribed slow waves become more prevalent later (type II). Here, we studied the possible occurrence of these two types of slow waves in stable non-REM (NREM) sleep and explored potential differences in their regulation. A heuristic approach based on slow wave synchronization efficiency was developed and applied to high-density electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings collected during consolidated NREM sleep to identify the potential type I and type II slow waves. Slow waves with characteristics compatible with those previously described for type I and type II were identified in stable NREM sleep. Importantly, these slow waves underwent opposite changes across the night, with only type II slow waves displaying a clear homeostatic regulation. In addition, we showed that the occurrence of type I slow waves was often followed by larger type II slow waves, whereas the occurrence of type II slow waves was usually followed by smaller type I waves. Finally, type II slow waves were associated with a relative increase in spindle activity, while type I slow waves triggered periods of high-frequency activity. Our results provide evidence for the existence of two distinct slow wave synchronization processes that underlie two different types of slow waves. These slow waves may have different functional roles and mark partially distinct “micro-states” of the sleeping brain.

How the human brain controls hand movements to carry out different tasks is still debated. The concept of synergy has been proposed to indicate functional modules that may simplify the control of hand postures by simultaneously recruiting sets of muscles and joints. However, whether and to what extent synergic hand postures are encoded as such at a cortical level remains unknown. Here, we combined kinematic, electromyography, and brain activity measures obtained by functional magnetic resonance imaging while subjects performed a variety of movements towards virtual objects. Hand postural information, encoded through kinematic synergies, were represented in cortical areas devoted to hand motor control and successfully discriminated individual grasping movements, significantly outperforming alternative somatotopic or muscle-based models. Importantly, hand postural synergies were predicted by neural activation patterns within primary motor cortex. These findings support a novel cortical organization for hand movement control and open potential applications for brain-computer interfaces and neuroprostheses.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13420.001

No abstract