. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 May 19.

Published in final edited form as: J Alzheimers Dis. 2016 Oct 4;54(3):1095–1112. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160092

Table 3.

Group differences in nodal centrality for HOFC/FC networks

#	HOFC			Direction^*	#	FC			Direction^*
#	Regions	p	t	Direction^*	#	Regions	p	t	Direction^*
1	IFGoper.R	0.011	2.589	↑	1	IFGoper.R	0.004	2.926	↑↑
2	IFGtri.L	0.043	−2.042	↓	2	PreCG.R	0.023	2.303	↑
3	Calc.L	0.030	2.195	↑	3	ROLoper.R	0.038	2.091	↑
4	Calc.R	0.005	2.817	↑↑	4	SMA.L	0.036	2.117	↑
5	Ling.L	0.043	2.037	↑	5	PostCG.L	0.030	2.185	↑
6	Ling.R	0.038	2.096	↑	6	PostCG.R	0.034	2.135	↑
7	SOG.L	0.025	2.271	↑	7	MTG.L	0.040	−2.067	↓
8	SOG.R	0.031	2.177	↑	8	ITG.L	0.011	−2.563	↓
9	MOG.L	0.036	2.119	↑
10	MOG.R	0.008	2.671	↑↑
11	SPL.R	0.007	2.715	↑↑

↑ indicates increased nodal centrality in MCIs compared with CONs with p < 0.05; ↓indicates decreased nodal centrality in MCIs compared with CONs with p < 0.05; ↑↑ indicates changes with p < 0.01. The shaded results indicate the same finding from both HOFC and FC. For abbreviations of the brain regions listed above please see Supplementary Material 1.