Imaging NeuroscienceNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Zero-phase-delay synchrony between interacting neural populations: implications for functional connectivity derived biomarkers
Chirag MehraiD, Ahmad BeyhiD, Petroula LaiouiD, Pilar GarcésiD, Emily J. H. JonesiD, Luke MasoniD, Jan K. BuitelaariD, Mark Henry JohnsoniD, Declan MurphyiD, Eva LothiD, Flavio Dell’AcquaiD, Joshua B. EweniD, Mark Philip RichardsoniD, Jonathan O’MuircheartaighiD
Abstract
Neural populations synchronise their activity with either zero-phase-delay (activity in interacting regions occurs simultaneously) or a phase-delay (activity in one region follows the other). In electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography functional connectivity analyses, artefactual connectivity can also occur with zero-phase-delay. To minimise artefact, contemporary analyses typically exclude all zero-phase-delay interactions. However, the extent to which true interactions are resultingly lost - and the impact this has on the performance of functional connectivity metrics as biomarkers - remains unknown. Here, we show that most cortico-cortical functional connectivity occurs with zero- or near-zero phase-delay, even where such connectivity is unlikely to be artefactual. Including, rather than excluding, zero-phase-delay connectivity increases the reliability, convergence with neurobiology (structure-function concordance, homotopic interhemispheric connectivity, and age-related connectivity changes), and prognostic ability of functional connectivity metrics. We find that excluding zero-phase-delay connections penalises functional connectivity strength between the strongest structurally connected regions: stronger structural connections lead to functional connections with phase-delays closer to zero, mediated by a shorter signal propagation time. Our findings challenge generally accepted assumptions that zero-phase-exclusive methods are superior to zero-phase-inclusive methods.
- organism: human
- assay: electronic health records
- research focus: cell-cell communication
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 6
- FWCI
- 3.42
- Field percentile
- top 7%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Excitatory delay-coupling explains in-phase and antiphase functional connectivity
Ahmet Omurtag, Andrei Dragomir, … William W. Lytton·bioRxiv·Jul 19, 2026
- Intracranial recordings reveal ubiquitous in-phase andin-antiphase functional connectivity between homotopic brain regions in humans
Christian O’Reilly, Mayada Elsabbagh·Journal of Neuroscience ResearchPeer-reviewed·Nov 15, 2020
- In-phase and in-antiphase connectivity in EEG
Christian O’Reilly, John D. Lewis, … Jeanne Townsend·bioRxiv·May 19, 2021
- Inter-brain functional connectivity: Are we measuring the right thing?
Juan Camilo Avendano-Diaz, Patrick Sothmann, … Lauri T. Parkkonen·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Jul 14, 2026
- Frequency-resolved functional connectivity: Role of delay and the strength of connections
Abolfazl Ziaeemehr, Alireza Valizadeh·Frontiers in Neural CircuitsPeer-reviewed·Mar 24, 2021
- Circadian and Sleep-Wake Modulation of Functional Connectivity Across Brain Oscillations and States Linked to Cognition in Humans
Alpár S. Lázár, Zsolt I. Lázár, … Derk‐Jan Dijk·bioRxiv·Oct 20, 2025