Fig 1.
The 2-back condition of the Human Connectome Project’s Working Memory task [37].
utilized a block design with four different stimulus categories: faces, places, tools, and body parts. During the inter-trial intervals, a fixation cross (+) was presented. This figure provides examples of the broad range of stimuli used. At the start of each block, participants were shown a target cue and instructed to respond to any appearance of that stimulus during the block. Data were collected over two runs, with each run containing eight task blocks—four 0-back and four 2-back blocks. Each stimulus category (faces, places, etc.) had 20 trials for both 0-back and 2-back conditions. The task design involved a 2.5-second cue period followed by 10 trials where each stimulus was displayed for 2 seconds, interspersed with 0.5-second fixation periods, for a total of 25 seconds per run. Stimuli categories were shown in separate runs (faces, places, body parts, or tools), and in 50% of the runs, 2-back conditions were preceded by a 15-second fixation cross screen. Panels B–E depict examples of these 2-back runs.
Table 1.
Heritability results for static functional connectivity.
Table 2.
Heritability results for mean of dynamic connectivity.
Fig 2.
Circulargraphs of genetic factor (A) of functional connectivity in working memory related regions of glasser parcellation.
a) Circulargraphs of A factor of static connectivity for working memory related areas b) The 10-top A factor of static connectivity for working memory related areas. c) Circulargraphs of A factor of mean of dynamic connectivity for working memory related areas. d) The 10-top A factor of mean of dynamic connectivity for working memory related areas. e) Circulargraphs of A factor of variance of dynamic connectivity for working memory related areas. f) The 10-top A factor of variance of dynamic connectivity for working memory related areas. In each part, genetic factor (A) of functional connectivity is computed using AE modelling and after multiple comparisons testing (p-value = 0.05), it is displayed on the circular graph of Glasser parcellation ROIs.
Table 3.
Heritability results for variance of dynamic connectivity.
Fig 3.
Percentage of genetically significant connections involving each anatomical brain region for three functional connectivity measures.
The figure shows three subplots corresponding to (A) Static FC, (B) dynamic FC mean (dFC-Mean), and (C) dynamic FC variance (dFC-Variance). Each bar represents the proportion of significant connections in which at least one end of the connection belongs to the specified anatomical region. Colors indicate different anatomical regions: DLPFC/LPFC/FEF, IPS/SPL, Precuneus/Medial Parietal, PCC, dACC, Temporal, and Insula. This visualization highlights the contribution of each anatomical region to the overall pattern of genetically significant connections across the three connectivity measures.
Table 4.
Differences between static, dynamic-mean, and dynamic-variance heritability.
Fig 4.
Within-network connectivity differences across dynamic states.
Bar plots show mean within-network connectivity (mean ± SEM) for each large-scale functional network in State 1 and State 2. Among all networks, only the Visual and Limbic networks exhibited significant differences between states(p-value = 0.05), with both showing stronger internal coherence in State 1. All other networks—including Somatomotor, Dorsal Attention, Ventral Attention/Salience, Frontoparietal Control, and Default Mode—showed no significant state-dependent differences.