Table 2.

Average performance of each dFC state identification method: correlation coefficients of interest (${\overline{\rho }}_{\max }^{⁎}$, ${\overline{\rho }}_{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{C}}$, ${\overline{\rho }}_{\mathrm{CTRL}}$), averaged separately across patients with (P1-P5) and without (P6-P8) clear epileptic activity.

Method	Performance measure
	Patients P1-P5			Patients P6-P8
	${\overline{\rho }}_{\max }^{⁎}$	${\overline{\rho }}_{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{C}}$	${\overline{\rho }}_{\mathrm{CTRL}}$	${\overline{\rho }}_{\max }^{⁎}$	${\overline{\rho }}_{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{C}}$	${\overline{\rho }}_{\mathrm{CTRL}}$
k-CL	0.49	0.61	−0.21	0.37	0.52	−0.25
PCA	0.25	0.44	−0.13	0.19	0.31	−0.15
l0-DL	0.49	0.50	−0.29	0.30	0.28	−0.38
l0-DLCL	0.52	0.53	−0.34	0.38	0.26	−0.47
l0-DLPCA	0.34	0.39	−0.23	0.34	0.18	−0.26
l1-DL	0.51	0.62	−0.27	0.35	0.54	−0.31
l1-DLCL	0.51	0.60	−0.30	0.38	0.23	−0.34
l 1 -DL PCA	0.53	0.67	−0.25	0.38	0.54	−0.31

The highest values for each correlation coefficient are highlighted in bold. l₁-DL_PCA consistently yielded the highest ${\overline{\rho }}_{\max }^{⁎}$ and ${\overline{\rho }}_{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{C}}$ for patients P1-P5, thus being deemed the best method; the same was subsequently observed for patients P6-P8. Overall, PCA was clearly outperformed by k-CL and the DL approaches, the latter slightly surpassing k-CL.