Bene Ramirez @benediktramirez.bsky.social · 23/08/2026Why does all of this matter for neuromodulation? If the goal is to stimulate a specific functional network, false-positive assignments can mean stimulating the wrong network. PCM lets us prioritize regions we're most confident belong to the intended network. 130 0
Bene Ramirez @benediktramirez.bsky.social · 23/08/2026Could thresholding improve reliability simply by removing what makes each person unique and leaving a generic network “core”? That’s not what we found. PCM increased agreement with each person’s independent reference while preserving, and even increasing, within-vs-between-subject separation. 120 0
Bene Ramirez @benediktramirez.bsky.social · 23/08/2026We tested PCM across scan durations and confidence thresholds. Both more data and PCM thresholding increased targeting precision, but PCM provided its largest gains when data were limited. At 5 min, PPV increased from 0.47 → 0.66 with thresholding, vs 0.71 at 70 min. 120 0
Bene Ramirez @benediktramirez.bsky.social · 23/08/2026Once uncertainty is quantified, it becomes actionable. Thresholding PCM maps removes unstable assignments. As confidence increases, off-network assignments are progressively removed and the retained network better matches an independent 70-min reference. The benefit is largest with limited data. 120 0
Bene Ramirez @benediktramirez.bsky.social · 23/08/2026So how can we know which parts of an individualized network map we can actually trust? PCM bootstraps the available fMRI time series, repeatedly reruns network detection, and asks how consistently each location is assigned to each network. The result: a map of assignment confidence. 120 0
Bene Ramirez @benediktramirez.bsky.social · 23/08/2026Functional networks vary substantially across people, making individualized mapping attractive for neuromodulation. But precision comes at a cost: more time in the scanner. With limited data, maps contain more off-network assignments, increasing the risk of targeting the wrong network. 120 0