Table 3.
Overlap of resulting patterns from connectivity analysis of the VLPFC seed with large-scale intrinsic connectivity networks defined by Yeo et al. (2011)⁎.
| Effects | Visual | Somato-motor | DAN | VAN | Limbic | FPN | DMN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group-level Positive connectivity | 2.5% | 0 | 18.1% | 4.8% | 11.3% | 45.2% | 18.1% |
| Group-level Negative connectivity | 44.8% | 5.5% | 0.7% | 1.9% | 5.7% | 1.8% | 39.6% |
| Low Control:Strong > Weak | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17.3% | 82.7% |
| High Control:Weak > Strong for 1st half of category | 0 | 11.5% | 6.5% | 79.5% | 0 | 2.3% | 0.2% |
| High Control:Weak > Strong for 2nd half of category | 0 | 0 | 26.4% | 0 | 0 | 35.3% | 38.3% |
| Low Control:1st > 2nd half of category for strong associations | 10.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 89.1% |
| High Control:2nd > 1st half of category for strong associations | 0 | 1.6% | 0 | 87.3% | 0 | 11.1% | 0 |
⁎
The percentage of voxels in the identified cluster that fell within the large-scale networks defined by Yeo et al. (2011) 7-network parcellation, disregarding voxels that did not fall within any of the Yeo networks.