Table 4.
Results of the exploratory cross-lagged panel models investigating associations between striatum volumes and functional network connectivity within and between the subcortical and cognitive control networks.
| Cognitive Control Network | Subcortical Network | Subcortical-Cognitive Control Between- Network | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter Estimated | b | r/β | p | b | r/β | p | b | r/β | p |
| striatum → FC | — | — | — | .003 | .039 and .085 | .57 | −.001 | −.031 and −.047 | .67 |
| FC → striatum | — | — | — | 1.62 | .051 and .040 | .47 | −9.56 | −.16 and −.16 | .004 |
| autoregressive paths: striatum | — | — | — | .84 | .39 and .65 | < .001 | .84 | .39 and .63 | < .001 |
| autoregressive paths: FC | — | — | — | .41 | .40 and .41 | < .001 | .54 | .42 and .38 | < .001 |
| within-person correlations | |||||||||
| time 1 | — | — | — | .02 | .057 | .46 | −.001 | −.004 | .96 |
| time 2 and time 3 | — | — | — | −.24 | −.37 and −.34 | .08 | .028 | .065 | .75 |
| time 3a | — | — | — | — | — | — | −.54 | −.79 | .001 |
| Model Fit | [no convergence] | χ2 (9) = 9.52, p = .39 RMSEA = .02, 90% CI[.00, .09] CFI = .99 SRMR = .11 | χ2 (8) = 9.73, p = .28 RMSEA = .04, 90% CI[.00, .10] CFI = .97 SRMR = .12 | ||||||
Only the model examining associations between striatum volume and subcortical-cognitive control between network connectivity indicated that Time 2 and Time 3 correlations should be estimated uniquely, rather than constraining them to be equal.Striatum volumes were linearly transformed by multiplying mean volumes (adjusted for total brain volume per participant) by 1000; unstandardized coefficients reflect the relationships between CC connectivity and linearly transformed striatum volumes; “b” = unstandardized parameter estimate; “r/β” = standardized parameter estimate (correlation/prediction, respectively); “FC” = functional connectivity within the specified network.