tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post6130643529672875959..comments2024-03-22T00:30:09.536-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: A few more words about good brains and bad brainsThe Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-81039910424797316492015-10-07T10:58:37.377-07:002015-10-07T10:58:37.377-07:00This article is getting a lot of attention, but it...This article is getting a lot of attention, but it hasn’t been emphasized that the amount of variance in behavior/demographics/etc explained by the combination of variables on the connectivity side is minuscule. See Figure 1c. The investigators presented many many behavioral variables and many many functional connectivity variables to an algorithm that identifies optimal dimensions of connectedness between the two datasets, and the only statistically meaningful dimension that emerged manages to account for something under 2% of the variance across the behavioral/demographic indicators. (The limited variance point may be true for the connectivity variables but I am confused about the scaling used in that part of the figure.) Maybe this isn’t surprising given the amount of data surveyed, but the specific findings here don’t seem like a big thing, as a practical matter. Certainly, there is nothing approaching an ‘explanation’ of a large positive/negative dimension of behavior — just an obscure pattern of connectivity that is associated with a tiny proportion of variance in some probably important but complexly interrelated behavioral/demographic variables.Dwight Dickinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04859350935463265585noreply@blogger.com