A discrepant result involves the auditory network that shows in MEG a

drop of α and β BLP correlation, but an increased correlation in fMRI. This discrepancy is likely due to difference in the experimental environment between MEG and fMRI (Supplemental Information). Finally, interactions between Visual and Language RSN were characterized by small yet significant mean decrease in fMRI as opposed to an enhancement of BLP correlation, especially in θ and β (and γ) bands. The pattern of fMRI connectivity for the Selleck Epacadostat default-mode network was similar to that of the visual network. Within-network fMRI connectivity decreased during movie in parallel to α/β BLP correlation decrements; cross-network fMRI connectivity decreased (from negative toward zero) with dorsal attention and visual networks in parallel to α BLP correlation decrements; finally, increases of BLP correlation between DMN and language in the γ band corresponded to a slight decrease in fMRI connectivity, similarly to what observed between visual and language networks (Figure 6). An important finding is that modulations of BLP correlation in different frequencies

were accompanied by an overall preservation of the large-scale topography of MEG and fMRI RSN across conditions, i.e., similar spatial patterns of correlation were observed in fixation and movie in both methods. This can be appreciated Dabrafenib manufacturer by inspecting separately MEG and fMRI covariance matrices in fixation and movie conditions (Figure 7A). In both methods the correlation was stronger within than across networks, a classic result in fMRI. Moreover even the local structure of correlation showed strong similarities.

For example, nodes like left and right FEF displayed relative low interregional correlation in both methods; conversely, right vIPS displayed strong correlation with most visual nodes in both modalities. To quantify these effects, we computed the spatial correlation on group-level Z score covariance Sclareol matrices using the Pearson product moment formula separately for fixation and movie. In each modality (fMRI or MEG) the spatial correlation between conditions (fixation, movie) was very high, except for the auditory network (visual network fMRI: r = 0.85 p < 0.001; MEG α BLP: r = 0.98, p < 0.001; auditory network fMRI: r = 0.45, p > 0.05; MEG α BLP: r = 0.99, p < 0.001; dorsal attention network fMRI: r = 0.93, p < 0.001; MEG α BLP: 0.96, p < 0.001). In addition, the covariance matrices between fMRI and MEG were similar within each condition (fixation or movie). The strongest correlation was within visual and dorsal attention RSN across multiple bands (Figure 7B; visual network; all p values < 0.01; Table S2). In terms of cross-network interaction, MEG and fMRI covariance matrices were similar for visual-dorsal attention, and visual-language interaction matrices across multiple bands (Table S2). Interestingly, the correlation between visual and language nodes across modalities was significant during movie watching (p < 0.