Figure 3.

In this figure, we plot the rate constant μ, obtained from fitting ${\tau }_i^L/{\tau }_i^0=\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}\left({\mu }_{i}L\right)$ for each region i, against the nodal efficiency in all four parcellation schemes. We note that in general less efficient nodes (those with low nodal efficiency ${\tau }_i^0$) tend to also have higher rates of decay; by contrast, nodes that have lower decay rate can have either low, medium, or high nodal efficiency ${\tau }_i^0$. In fact, if we restrict ourselves to nodes with decay rates ${\mu }_i$ less than 0.08, the correlation between ${\mu }_i$ and ${\tau }_i^0$ becomes statistically insignificant except for the 620‐parcelation scheme (P = 0.041) before correcting for multiple corrections (all insignificant after controlling for multiple comparisons).