Wohooo congrats!

We recently also replicated this FPN fractionation in densely- sampled subjects at 7T and found this FPN subnetwork to strongly couple with the dorsolateral DMN subnetwork.

It’s an FPN subnetwork: at rest, it couples more strongly with the rest of the FPN than with the DMN. During some tasks it shifts toward the DMN, but for cognitive control it ramps up connectivity with the FPN. Good reference: doi.org/10.1073/pnas...

Amazing, thanks so much! Will reach out via email!

I am planning to do the same in my lab - would love to hear more how you decided to design such a session!

Replicability isn’t just a VASO issue — it’s a challenge across the (laminar) fMRI field. However, I argue that low SNR makes VASO especially hard: tricky to detect signal and even harder to replicate. I’m not pushing GE-BOLD for laminar fMRI, but “just use VASO” oversimplifies the current problems.

Compared to laminar MVPA in GE-BOLD, these are not many studies :) I know your work (RSA in Kenshu paper), Polina's preprint + Daniel's preprint (where it becomes evident that decoding with VASO is hard and in his case looks similar to GE-BOLD on the group level). Is Insub Kim's work published yet?

If replication isn’t possible due to physiology/attention, we’d be giving up on replicability as a field. Did you engage with our paper and the original? Attention is measured via task performance, and the original study showed very large effects in individuals, so replication is a fair expectation.

I haven't seen that many papers yet using MVPA in VASO. With respect to our replication study, main thing is the ROI selection I would say and not segmentation issues as we did a lot of control analyses including manual segmentation.

Also we can't replicate important VASO findings. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

We haven’t managed to get reliable decoding with VASO yet, even for simple contrasts. My sense is that most of the field will continue to rely on GE-BOLD for MVPA, which is exactly why we thought our paper might be useful!