Condition Differences in Correlation Values.

<p>Plots show the difference in correlations between the right hand condition and the left hand condition, along with bootstrap 90% confidence intervals. L = Left; R = Right; SMA = Supplementary Motor Area; SMC = primary SensoriMotor Cortex.</p

Direct Comparison of Correlation Differences Between Methods.

<p>The values of (<i>Z_R</i>−<i>Z_L</i>) from <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003708#pone-0003708-g003" target="_blank">Figure 3</a> were compared directly between methods. There were no differences in this measure between methods based on the 90% confidence intervals shown. L = Left; R = Right; SMA = Supplementary Motor Area; SMC = primary SensoriMotor Cortex.</p

Raw Correlation Values, Left Hand Task.

<p>Estimated Z-normalized correlations and 90% bootstrap confidence intervals are shown for each region pair for the left hand movement condition. Each subplot shows results from the three different methods. L = Left; R = Right; SMA = Supplementary Motor Area; SMC = primary SensoriMotor Cortex.</p

Effective Connectivity Regression Model.

<p>This model was fit to the region-of-interest data for each of the three methods to obtain estimates of effective connectivity. The model reflects the inter- and intra-hemispheric influences of interest in the original experiment. L = Left; R = Right; SMA = Supplementary Motor Area; SMC = primary SensoriMotor Cortex.</p

Conflicting Connectivity Results.

<p>These results from two studies of schizophrenic patients were chosen to exemplify two methodological approaches. The table reports connectivity between cerebellum, prefrontal cortex, and thalamus in olanzapine-treated patients with respect to non-schizophrenic control subjects. Synthesis of the two results is confounded by differences in methodology.</p

Condition Differences in Path Coefficients.

<p>Plots show the difference in coefficients between the right hand condition and the left hand condition, along with bootstrap 90% confidence intervals. All three methods showed greater connectivity from LSMA to RSMC during right hand movement, with no change in RSMA to LSMC connectivity, thereby replicating the key result of the original study. L = Left; R = Right; SMA = Supplementary Motor Area; SMC = primary SensoriMotor Cortex.</p

Ultrasound modulation causes a spatial pattern in the projection of incoherent LED light in water.

<p>When the unmodulated LED light propagation (RF off) is sampled at a projected distance of 113 mm, the normalized incoherent light distribution is relatively smooth and uniform over the detection window. However when the light passes through an ultrasound focal zone (1 MHz, located 10 mm from the LED and 103 mm from the projection plane), the light displays a pattern having a central peak with smaller maxima or side lobes on either side with an average peak spacing of 8.5 mm.</p

Optical projection of the focal zone.

<p>The projection of the focal zone magnifies the spacings and the widths of the peaks with increasing projection distance, and produces unsharp peaks in the spatial pattern. Peak spacings are expected at every ultrasound half-wavelength multiplied by the magnification factor or <i>mΛ/2</i>, where <i>m</i> is the magnification factor and <i>Λ</i> is the wavelength of the ultrasound.</p

Increasing the applied ultrasound frequency increases the number of projected AOM peaks.

<p>The number of observed peaks and their separation within the observed pattern appears to scale with ultrasound frequency, (A), (B), (C), and (D), with 2, 3, 4, and 7 peaks observed for ultrasound frequencies of 0.62, 1.0, 1.3, and 2.25 MHz, respectively.</p

Experimental Apparatus.

<p>US: ultrasound transducer; LED: light-emitting diode; OW: optical window; WT: water tank; PMT: photomultiplier tube; MS: motion stage; I–V: transimpedance amplifier; LIA: lock-in amplifier; OSC: oscilloscope; 3DS: three axis motion stage; PC: LabVIEW system control and data acquisition computer.</p