Table 2. Validation analyses of the effects of task complexity on the global parameters derived from the binary networks in different brain templates (the AAL90 and Fun268 templates) and the weighted network in the Fun160 template.
| C p | L p | E loc | E glob | σ | K | D p | Q | R | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAL90 | |||||||||
| F(2,34) | 3.68 a | 3.55 a | 3.40 a | 3.97 a | 3.04 ns | 3.96 a | 2.48 ns | 2.08 ns | 0.60 ns |
| 0052 | ↓ ns | ↑ ns | ↓ ns | ↓ ns | — | ↓ ns | — | — | — |
| VSW vs. VSD | ↑ a | ↓ a | ↑ a | ↑ a | — | ↑ a | — | — | — |
| RS vs. VSD | ↑ ns | ↓ ns | ↑ ns | ↑ ns | — | ↑ ns | — | — | — |
| Fun268 | |||||||||
| F(2,34) | 14.8 b | 13.3 b | 12.6 b | 13.4 b | 19.9 b | 13.0 b | 21.8 b | 11.0 b | 2.16 ns |
| RS vs. VSW | ↑ ns | ↓ ns | ↑ ns | ↑ ns | ↓ ns | ↑ ns | ↓ ns | ↑ ns | — |
| VSW vs. VSD | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | ↑ b | ↓ b | — |
| RS vs. VSD | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | ↑ b | ↓ b | — |
| Weighted | |||||||||
| F(2,34) | 16.1 b | 19.9 b | 23.3 b | 18.2 b | 13.7 b | 13.1 b | 1.27 ns | 11.5 b | 6.74 b |
| RS vs. VSW | ↑ ns | ↓ b | ↑ b | ↑ a | ↓ ns | ↑ ns | — | ↓ ns | ↑ a |
| VSW vs. VSD | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | — | ↓ b | ↑ ns |
| RS vs. VSD | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | ↑ b | ↓ b | ↑ b | — | ↓ b | ↑ a |
Note: The validation of the nodal analysis was not performed due to the incompatibility across different brain templates. The bold text represents the consistent results compared with the main findings.—represents non-applicability because the corresponding result of ANOVA is not significant (p > 0.05). ↑ represents RS < VSW, VSW < VSD, and RS < VSD, respectively; ↓ represents the contrary. C p, clustering coefficient; L p, characteristic path length; E loc, local efficiency; E glob, global efficiency; σ, small-worldness; K, average degree; D p, physical distance; Q, modularity; R, robustness. RS: resting-state, VSW: visual stimulus watching task, VSD: visual stimulus decision task.
a 0.01 ≤ p<0.05
b p<0.01
ns, Nonsignificant (p>0.05)