Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Feb 11.
Published in final edited form as: Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 May 21;36(9):3323–3338. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22840

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Dynamic causal modeling model specification and comparison (A) Model specification; viewing painful images modulated either no intrinsic connections (Model 1–4), or intrinsic connections of AIC, EBA, and LPFC (Models 5–8). Additionally, viewing painful images could modulate either no extrinsic connections (Models 1 and 5), forward connections from AIC/EBA to LPFC (Models 2 and 6), backward connections from LPFC to AIC/EBA (Models 3 and 7), or reciprocal connections between AIC/EBA and LPFC (Models 4 and 8). (B) Random effect Bayesian model selection (BMS) indicates that Model 8 emerges as the winning model for both groups. (C) Random effect BMS at the family level shows that the family of models with modulation of self-connection by painful images (Models 5–8) is better than the family of models without such modulation of self-connection (Models 1–4). LPFC, lateral prefrontal cortex; AIC, anterior insular cortex; EBA, extrastriate body area; ASD, autism spectrum disorder; HC, healthy control.