Brain Fingerprinting: Unlocking Individual Identity Through Functional Connectivity

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive exploration of functional connectivity (FC) as a unique and reliable biomarker for individual identification, known as brain fingerprinting. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it synthesizes foundational concepts, methodological advances, optimization challenges, and validation paradigms. We cover the neurobiological basis of FC fingerprints, the application of machine learning and tensor decomposition for enhanced identifiability, strategies to overcome computational and reliability hurdles, and the critical distinction between identification accuracy and behavioral prediction. The review highlights the potential of this technology to advance personalized medicine and the development of objective neurodiagnostic tools.

The Blueprint of the Self: Foundations of the Functional Connectome Fingerprint

The study of brain organization has undergone a fundamental paradigm shift. For decades, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies traditionally collapsed data from many subjects to draw inferences about general patterns of brain activity common across people, overlooking the considerable heterogeneity within groups [1]. This approach, while valuable for identifying universal brain network blueprints, ignored a critical aspect of brain functional organization: its substantial individual variability. The emergence of the functional connectome fingerprint represents a transformative advancement, enabling a transition from population-level studies to investigations of single subjects [1]. This revolutionary concept establishes that an individual's pattern of functional connectivity—the statistical associations between time series of different brain regions—acts as a unique "fingerprint" that can accurately identify subjects from a large group [1]. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of methodological approaches for defining and extracting these individual-specific connectivity signatures, detailing experimental protocols, benchmarking performance across methods, and outlining essential research tools for advancing this promising field toward personalized medicine and drug development.

Comparative Analysis of Functional Connectome Fingerprinting Methodologies

Core Methodological Approaches and Identification Performance

Table 1: Comparison of Functional Connectome Fingerprinting Methodologies

Methodology	Core Principle	Identification Accuracy	Key Brain Networks	Data Requirements
Pairwise Correlation (Finn et al.) [1]	Pearson correlation between regional time courses	92.9-99% (rest-rest); 54-87% (cross-task) [1]	Frontoparietal, Medial Frontal [1]	Two scanning sessions (different days)
PCA Reconstruction & Identifiability Maximization [2]	Reconstruction via group-wise connectivity eigenmodes	Maximizes subject identifiability across rest and tasks [2]	Optimized global and edgewise connectivity [2]	Multiple task and rest sessions
Deep Neural Networks (DNN) with Explicit Sparsity Control [3]	Hierarchical feature learning from time-varying FC	97.1% (300 subjects, 15s window); 93.3% (870 subjects) [3]	Whole-brain with individualized important edges [3]	Single resting-state session with multiple time windows
Multi-Modal Pairwise Statistics Benchmarking [4]	Comparison of 239 interaction statistics	Varies by method; precision and covariance perform well [4]	Varies by method; dorsal attention, default mode highlighted [4]	Resting-state fMRI for benchmarking

Neuroimaging Modalities for Fingerprint Extraction

Table 2: Comparison of Neuroimaging Modalities for Functional Connectome Fingerprinting

Modality	Temporal Resolution	Spatial Resolution	Practical Advantages	Identification Performance
fMRI [1]	Moderate (0.5-2s)	High (mm)	Comprehensive brain coverage; established pipelines	92.9-99% accuracy (HCP data) [1]
fNIRS [5]	High (0.1s)	Limited to cortex	Portable; insensitive to motion; lower cost	Effective cross-task identification [5]
MEG [5]	High (ms)	Moderate	Direct neural activity measurement; excellent temporal resolution	Similar recognition rates to fMRI [5]
EEG [5]	High (ms)	Low	Cost-effective; excellent temporal resolution	Possible with graph neural network features [5]

Experimental Protocols for Fingerprint Extraction and Validation

Core Fingerprinting Protocol Using Pairwise Correlations

The foundational protocol for establishing functional connectome fingerprints involves several methodical stages [1]. First, data acquisition typically uses resting-state or task-based fMRI from the Human Connectome Project or similar datasets, with multiple scanning sessions per subject. Preprocessing follows established pipelines including artifact removal, motion correction, registration to standard space, global signal regression, and bandpass filtering (typically 0.001-0.08 Hz) [1] [2].

For functional connectivity matrix construction, a brain atlas with 268 nodes (or alternative parcellations) defines regions of interest. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the timecourses of each possible pair of nodes is calculated to construct symmetrical connectivity matrices where each element represents connection strength between two nodes [1]. This produces a subject-specific connectivity profile for each scanning session.

The identification process itself involves iterative matching between "target" and "database" sessions from different days. For each individual's target connectivity matrix, similarity is computed against all matrices in the database using Pearson correlation between vectors of edge values. The database matrix with maximum similarity is selected, and the identity prediction is scored correct if it matches the true identity [1]. This process systematically demonstrates that an individual's connectivity profile is intrinsic and reliable enough to distinguish that individual regardless of how the brain is engaged during imaging.

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for functional connectome fingerprint identification

Advanced Protocol: Deep Neural Network Fingerprint Extraction

For DNN-based fingerprint extraction, the protocol differs substantially [3]. After standard preprocessing, time-varying functional connectivity (tvFC) is estimated using sliding window approaches with varying window lengths (from 15 seconds to several minutes). A deep neural network with explicit weight sparsity control is then trained for individual identification, combining L1 regularization (for feature selection) and L2 regularization (for stability). The trained DNN generates what researchers term the "fingerprint of FC" (fpFC)—representative edges of individual FC that serve as robust neuromarkers. This approach successfully identifies hundreds of individuals even with very short time windows (15 seconds), demonstrating remarkable temporal efficiency [3].

Protocol for Maximizing Identifiability Through Connectivity Eigenmodes

This innovative approach employs group-wise decomposition in a finite number of brain connectivity modes to maximize individual fingerprint [2]. The method applies principal component analysis (PCA) decomposition across the cohort's functional connectomes, identifying common connectivity patterns. Individual connectomes are then reconstructed through an optimal finite linear combination of orthogonal principal components (connectivity eigenmodes). The optimal reconstruction level maximizes subject identifiability across both resting-state and task conditions. This reconstruction enhances edgewise identifiability as measured by intra-class correlation and produces more robust associations with task-related behavioral measurements [2].

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Functional Connectome Fingerprinting

Resource Category	Specific Tools & Databases	Application in Research	Key Features
Primary Datasets	Human Connectome Project (HCP) [1] [2]	Method development and validation	High-quality fMRI; multiple tasks; large sample
	Tel Aviv University SNBB [6]	Real-world cognitive prediction	Coupled with psychometric test scores
Brain Atlases	268-node functional atlas [1]	Standardized parcellation	Whole-brain coverage; defined on healthy subjects
	Glasser 360-region cortical parcellation [2]	Fine-grained analysis	Detailed cortical mapping plus subcortical regions
Software & Pipelines	FSL FIX ICA [2]	Artifact removal	Automated noise component identification
	HCP Workbench [2]	Data processing	CIFTI data handling; surface-based analysis
	PySPI package [4]	Multi-method connectivity	239 pairwise interaction statistics
Analysis Methods	Pearson's correlation [1]	Baseline connectivity	Simple linear association; widely used
	Precision/inverse covariance [4]	Direct connectivity estimation	Controls for shared network influences
	Sparse DNN architectures [3]	Individual fingerprint extraction	Handles high-dimensional noisy data

Beyond Identification: Predicting Behavior and Cognitive Traits

The true value of functional connectome fingerprints extends far beyond mere identification to predicting clinically and educationally relevant outcomes. Research demonstrates that the same functional connectivity profiles that successfully identify individuals can also predict fundamental cognitive traits [1]. Specifically, connectivity patterns predict levels of fluid intelligence, with the most discriminating networks (frontoparietal) also being most predictive of cognitive behavior [1].

Remarkably, recent studies have successfully predicted real-world cognitive performance using resting-state functional connectivity patterns. Researchers significantly predicted performance on the Psychometric Entrance Test—a standardized exam used for university admissions—including global scores and specific cognitive domains (quantitative reasoning, verbal reasoning, and foreign language proficiency) [6]. This demonstrates that functional connectomes capture real-world variability in both global and domain-specific cognitive abilities, emphasizing their potential as objective markers of real-world cognitive performance with substantial implications for educational and clinical applications [6].

Figure 2: Applications and implications of functional connectome fingerprinting

Critical Methodological Considerations and Optimization Strategies

Key Factors Influencing Fingerprint Accuracy

Several technical and methodological factors significantly impact fingerprinting accuracy. Scan duration profoundly affects reliability, with longer acquisitions naturally providing more stable connectivity estimates, though advanced methods like DNNs can achieve remarkable accuracy with windows as brief as 15 seconds [3]. The choice of pairwise interaction statistic substantially alters resulting FC matrices and their downstream identifiability, with precision-based and covariance-based methods generally outperforming others for both identification and structure-function coupling [4].

The selection of functional networks included in analysis dramatically influences discriminative power. The frontoparietal network emerges consistently as the most distinctive for individual identification, with the combination of medial frontal and frontoparietal networks significantly outperforming either network alone or whole-brain connectivity [1]. Edgewise analysis reveals that connections with high differential power (ability to distinguish individuals) predominantly involve frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, particularly within and between frontoparietal networks and default mode network [1].

Addressing Reproducibility and Generalizability

The reproducibility of functional connectome fingerprints across sessions and tasks establishes their reliability as intrinsic brain features [1]. Successful identification across scan sessions and even between task and rest conditions confirms that an individual's connectivity profile is intrinsic, and can be used to distinguish that individual regardless of how the brain is engaged during imaging [1]. Furthermore, transfer learning approaches demonstrate that models trained on one dataset can successfully identify individuals from independent datasets, supporting the feasibility of the technique across different acquisition protocols and populations [3].

For optimal fingerprint extraction, researchers should consider implementing PCA-based reconstruction to maximize identifiability [2], employing multiple connectivity metrics rather than defaulting exclusively to Pearson correlation [4], utilizing sparse DNN architectures when dealing with short time windows or high-dimensional data [3], and focusing analytical attention on frontoparietal and default mode networks which consistently demonstrate highest discriminative power [1].

The quest to understand the biological underpinnings of individual identity has led neuroscientists to investigate the brain's intrinsic functional architecture. Rather than operating as a collection of isolated regions, the brain organizes itself into large-scale intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs)—collections of widely distributed brain areas that demonstrate synchronized activity patterns during rest and task performance [7]. These ICNs provide a fundamental organizational framework for brain function, with emerging research suggesting that individual variations in these networks may serve as unique functional connectivity fingerprints that anchor individual identity [8]. The study of these networks has been revolutionized by analytical methods such as independent component analysis (ICA), which enables data-driven identification of these functional systems without a priori assumptions about their structure [9] [10].

The concept of ICNs expands upon earlier observations of resting state networks to include the set of large-scale functionally connected networks that can be identified in both resting state and task-based neuroimaging data [10]. This recognition that the brain's intrinsic functional architecture persists across both task-free and task-engaged states provides a robust foundation for investigating stable, individual-specific features of brain organization. Current neurobiological models propose that these networks represent a fundamental aspect of human brain architecture that supports cognition, emotion, perception, and action [10] [7], with their unique configurations potentially encoding the neural basis of individual differences.

The Canonical Large-Scale Brain Networks: A Reference Framework

Research converging from multiple studies has identified a core set of large-scale brain networks that consistently appear across individuals and methodologies. While different classification schemes exist, most include several well-established networks with distinct functional roles [7]. The following table summarizes the primary large-scale brain networks and their associated functions:

Table 1: Canonical Large-Scale Brain Networks and Their Functions

Network Name	Core Brain Regions	Primary Functions
Default Mode Network (DMN)	Medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, inferior parietal lobule	Self-referential thought, mind-wandering, memory retrieval, future planning [7] [11]
Salience Network (SN)	Anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex	Detecting behaviorally relevant stimuli, switching between networks, emotional awareness [7] [11]
Executive Control Network (ECN)	Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex	Goal-directed cognition, working memory, cognitive control [7] [11]
Dorsal Attention Network (DAN)	Intraparietal sulcus, frontal eye fields	Voluntary, top-down attention orienting [7]
Sensorimotor Network (SMN)	Precentral and postcentral gyri	Somatosensory processing and motor coordination [7]
Visual Network (VN)	Occipital cortex regions	Visual information processing [7]
Limbic Network	Amygdala, hippocampus, ventral prefrontal regions	Emotional processing, memory formation [7]

These networks do not operate in isolation but rather interact in a carefully coordinated manner. The triple network model—focusing on the dynamic interactions between the default mode, salience, and executive control networks—has proven particularly valuable for understanding how the brain switches between internal and external focus, and how these interactions may be disrupted in various neuropsychiatric conditions [11].

Methodological Foundations: Mapping the Brain's Intrinsic Architecture

Analytical Approaches for Network Identification

The identification and characterization of intrinsic brain networks relies on sophisticated analytical approaches that can detect synchronized activity patterns across the brain. The primary methods include:

• Independent Component Analysis (ICA): A blind source separation technique that decomposes neuroimaging data into maximally independent spatial components and their associated time courses [9]. ICA can be applied at the individual or group level, with spatial group-ICA (sgr-ICA) providing a robust framework for identifying shared functional networks across individuals [9]. This data-driven approach does not require a priori seed selection and can reveal novel network configurations.

• Seed-Based Functional Connectivity: This hypothesis-driven approach calculates temporal correlations between a pre-defined seed region and all other brain voxels. While powerful for testing specific hypotheses about network connections, it depends critically on accurate seed selection and may miss complex, distributed network patterns [7].

• Graph Theoretical Approaches: These methods represent the brain as a collection of nodes (brain regions) and edges (connections between them), enabling quantification of network properties such as modularity, efficiency, and hub identification [7]. This approach facilitates comparison with other complex networks and provides metrics for individual differences.

High-Order ICA for Fine-Grained Network Parsellation

Traditional ICA applications typically used lower-order models (20-45 components) that identified broad, large-scale networks [9]. However, advances in computational power and the availability of large datasets have enabled very high-order ICA models that parse the brain into hundreds of distinct components. For example, a recent study applied group-ICA with 500 components to more than 100,000 subjects, generating a robust, fine-grained ICN template called NeuroMark-fMRI-500 [9].

This high-order approach reveals functionally distinct subnetworks embedded within larger-scale systems. For instance, the cerebellar region, often treated as a relatively homogeneous area in lower-order models, can be parsed into multiple fine-grained components with distinct connectivity patterns [9]. This enhanced granularity improves the detection of disease-related connectivity differences and provides a more detailed framework for identifying individual-specific network features.

Table 2: Comparison of ICA Model Orders and Their Applications

ICA Model Order	Spatial Resolution	Primary Applications	Limitations
Low-Order (20-45 components)	Identifies broad, large-scale networks	Initial network characterization, clinical studies with smaller sample sizes	Limited granularity, misses finer network subdivisions
Medium-Order (75-200 components)	Reveals intermediate-scale networks and major subnetworks	Detailed mapping of network architecture, individual differences research	May miss highly specialized subnetwork regions
High-Order (500+ components)	Parses networks into fine-grained, functionally specific components	Creating detailed network templates, detecting subtle disease effects, fingerprinting studies	Requires very large sample sizes, computational intensity

Experimental Protocol: Large-Scale Network Analysis with High-Order ICA

The following experimental workflow outlines the protocol for conducting high-order ICA analysis of intrinsic brain networks, based on methodologies described in the search results [9]:

• Data Acquisition and Quality Control

  • Acquire resting-state fMRI (rsfMRI) data with a minimum of 120 time points (volumes)
  • Apply rigorous quality control: mean framewise displacement < 0.25 mm, head motion transitions within 3mm
  • Address inter-site variability through standardized preprocessing when using multi-site datasets

• Preprocessing Pipeline

  • Perform standard preprocessing: slice timing correction, realignment, normalization to standard space
  • Apply additional preprocessing: band-pass filtering (typically 0.01-0.1 Hz), regression of nuisance variables (white matter, CSF, motion parameters)

• Group-Level ICA Decomposition

  • Concatenate preprocessed data across subjects
  • Perform dimensionality reduction using principal component analysis
  • Apply ICA algorithm (e.g., Infomax, FastICA) at specified model order (e.g., 500 components)
  • Estimate spatial independent components and associated time courses

• Component Identification and Classification

  • Identify components corresponding to neural networks (vs. artifacts) through visual inspection and automated template matching
  • Classify components into established network categories using atlases or template matching algorithms
  • For fine-grained templates (e.g., NeuroMark-fMRI-500), organize and label networks using terminology familiar to cognitive and affective neuroscience

• Network Connectivity Analysis

  • Calculate functional network connectivity (FNC) as correlations between component time courses
  • Compare connectivity patterns between groups or correlate with behavioral measures
  • Perform statistical analysis with appropriate multiple comparisons correction

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for intrinsic network analysis using high-order ICA. The process flows from data acquisition through network identification to individual fingerprinting applications.

Intrinsic Networks as Individual Identity Anchors: Evidence and Mechanisms

Individual Variability in Network Organization

The concept of intrinsic brain networks as identity anchors stems from growing evidence that individuals possess unique and stable patterns of functional network organization. Several key principles support this framework:

• Spatial Variability: While large-scale networks show consistent organization across individuals, their precise spatial boundaries and topography vary in individually specific ways [8]. These spatial differences are not random noise but represent meaningful variations that correlate with behavior and cognitive abilities.

• Connectional Fingerprints: The strength of connections within and between networks creates a unique pattern for each individual. One study demonstrated that very high-order ICA (500 components) could capture fine-grained connectivity patterns that differentiated individuals with schizophrenia from healthy controls with high accuracy [9].

• Temporal Dynamics: The brain's functional architecture is not static but dynamically reconfigured over time [12]. Individuals show characteristic patterns in how their networks transition between different connectivity states, providing another dimension for individual identification [12].

Contextual Connectivity: The Dynamic Framework of Network Interactions

A recent framework termed contextual connectivity proposes that canonical static networks are actually superordinate approximations of underlying dynamic states [12]. According to this model, each network can resolve into multiple network connectivity states (NC-states) that occur in specific whole-brain contexts. This dynamic perspective bridges the gap between static network models and fully time-varying approaches, providing a more comprehensive foundation for understanding individual differences in brain organization [12].

The dynamic nature of network organization does not undermine its potential as an identity anchor; rather, it adds another dimension of individual specificity. Studies have shown that individuals exhibit characteristic patterns in how their networks transition between different connectivity states, with these dynamic features potentially providing more discriminative power for individual identification than static connectivity alone [12].

Diagram 2: Contextual connectivity framework. Whole-brain states (blue rectangles) provide context for specific network connectivity states within canonical networks (colored circles), creating a hierarchical organization of brain dynamics.

Clinical Applications: Network Alterations in Neuropsychiatric Disorders

The utility of intrinsic networks as identity anchors is particularly evident in clinical neuroscience, where distinct network alterations have been identified across various neuropsychiatric conditions:

Table 3: Network Dysconnectivity Patterns in Neuropsychiatric Disorders

Disorder	Key Network Alterations	Functional Consequences
Schizophrenia	Hypoconnectivity between cerebellar and subcortical domains; hyperconnectivity between cerebellar and visual/sensorimotor domains [9]; triple network dysfunction [9]	Impaired information integration, cognitive deficits, hallucinations
Cocaine Use Disorder	Stronger SN-aDMN and ECN-aDMN connectivity; disrupted subcortical-network connectivity [11]	Executive dysfunction, craving, emotional dysregulation
Methamphetamine Dependence	Gray matter reductions in default mode, cognitive control, salience networks; differential basal ganglia-network connectivity patterns [13]	Cognitive impairment, compensatory network reorganization
Depression, Alzheimer's, Autism	Disruptions in triple network interactions and default mode network integrity [7]	Domain-specific cognitive and emotional deficits

These disorder-specific network "fingerprints" not only advance our understanding of disease mechanisms but also hold promise for developing biomarkers for diagnosis, treatment selection, and monitoring treatment response. For example, a classifier based on triple network connectivity achieved 77.1% accuracy in distinguishing individuals with cocaine use disorder from controls [11], demonstrating the discriminative power of network-based approaches.

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Intrinsic Network Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Methods	Function/Application
Analytical Software	FSL MELODIC ICA, GIG-ICA, CONN toolbox	Data preprocessing, ICA decomposition, connectivity analysis
Network Templates	NeuroMark-fMRI-500, Yeo 17-network atlas	Reference for component identification, network classification
Data Resources	UK Biobank, ADNI, Human Connectome Project	Large-scale datasets for method validation, individual differences research
Quality Control Metrics	Framewise displacement, DVARS, FIX classifier	Assessing data quality, identifying motion artifacts
Statistical Approaches	Network-based statistic, graph theory metrics, dynamic connectivity	Identifying significant group differences, characterizing network properties
Visualization Tools	BrainNet Viewer, Connectome Workbench	Visualizing network maps, connection patterns

The conceptualization of intrinsic brain networks as identity anchors represents a paradigm shift in neuroscience, moving beyond localized brain regions to distributed network systems as the fundamental units of brain organization and individual differences. The development of high-order ICA approaches, combined with large-scale datasets and dynamic connectivity frameworks, has provided unprecedented resolution for parsing the brain's functional architecture and its individual variations.

The emerging evidence suggests that each individual possesses a unique pattern of functional network organization and dynamics that remains stable over time yet adapts to changing cognitive demands and life experiences. This network fingerprint is not merely a biological curiosity but has profound implications for understanding the neurobiological basis of individuality, including variations in cognitive abilities, emotional processing, and vulnerability to neuropsychiatric disorders.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these advances offer new pathways for developing network-based biomarkers for diagnosis, treatment selection, and monitoring therapeutic response. The ability to precisely map an individual's unique network architecture brings us closer to personalized neuroscience approaches that respect the biological individuality of each person's brain while identifying common principles of brain organization that unite us as a species.

The human brain operates through the dynamic interplay of large-scale, intrinsic networks. Among these, the Frontoparietal Network (FPN) and the Default Mode Network (DMN) play critical and distinct roles in cognitive processes. The FPN is central to goal-directed behavior, cognitive control, and working memory, acting as a flexible hub that coordinates other brain networks [14]. In contrast, the DMN is most active during rest and supports self-referential thought, autobiographical memory, and mental simulation [15] [16]. A key feature of their relationship is their typical anti-correlation; during demanding cognitive tasks, the FPN activates while the DMN deactivates, a dynamic thought to be crucial for focused attention [17]. Disruptions in the connectivity within and between these networks are increasingly recognized as transdiagnostic biomarkers for a range of neuropsychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) [18] [19]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the FPN and DMN, detailing their distinct functional profiles, the experimental data that delineates them, and the methodologies used to map their intricate landscape.

Comparative Functional Profiles: FPN vs. DMN

Table 1: Core Functional Characteristics of the FPN and DMN.

Feature	Frontoparietal Network (FPN)	Default Mode Network (DMN)
Primary Functions	Cognitive control, working memory, task initiation, goal-directed attention, flexible hub function [14]	Self-referential thought, autobiographical memory, mind-wandering, envisioning the future, theory of mind [15] [16]
Key Anatomical Nodes	Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (dlPFC), Intraparietal Sulcus (IPS), Lateral Prefrontal Cortex [18] [14]	Medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC), Posterior Cingulate Cortex (PCC)/Precuneus, Angular Gyrus [15] [16]
Typical Activity State	Activated during externally-focused, cognitively demanding tasks [14] [20]	Activated during rest and internally-focused mental states; deactivated during demanding external tasks [15] [17]
Network Relationship	Anti-correlated with DMN during tasks; interacts with and modulates other networks [14] [17]	Anti-correlated with FPN during tasks; dynamically interacts with Salience and Executive networks [16] [20]
Role in Psychopathology	Dysconnectivity linked to cognitive impairments in schizophrenia, ADHD, and mood disorders [18] [14]	Hyperconnectivity and failure to deactivate linked to rumination in MDD and self-referential deficits in schizophrenia [15] [19]

Direct Comparative Evidence: Network Dysconnectivity in Affective Disorders

A direct comparison of functional connectivity (FC) in first-episode bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) reveals distinct dysconnectivity patterns, offering insights into their unique pathophysiologies.

Table 2: Distinct Functional Connectivity Patterns in First-Episode Affective Disorders.

Connectivity Measure	Bipolar Disorder (BD) Pattern	Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) Pattern
Overall Characterization	More extensive functional dysconnectivity, involving both within- and between-network alterations [18] [21]	More localized functional dysconnectivity, confined primarily to the anterior DMN [18] [21]
Within-Network DMN FC	Increased FC (hyperconnectivity) between ventromedial PFC (vmPFC) and occipital region [18]	Increased FC only within the anterior DMN (vmPFC, superior frontal cortex, ventrolateral PFC) [18]
Within-Network FPN FC	Increased FC between ventral anterior PFC and intraparietal sulcus [18]	Not reported as a prominent feature in first-episode cases [18]
Between-Network FC (FPN-DMN)	Increased FC between ventral anterior PFC and occipital region, and between ventral PFC and precuneus [18]	Not reported as a prominent feature in first-episode cases [18]
Associated Cognitive Deficit	Correlated with greater cognitive impairment, particularly in executive function (e.g., percent perseverative errors on WCST) [18]	Less severe cognitive impairment compared to BD at first episode [18]

Key Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)

• Protocol Purpose: To map intrinsic functional connectivity within and between the FPN and DMN by measuring spontaneous, low-frequency fluctuations in the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal while the subject is at rest [18] [15].
• Detailed Workflow:
  • Participant Preparation: Participants are instructed to lie still in the scanner with their eyes open or closed, fixating on a cross-hair, without engaging in any structured task.
  • Data Acquisition: High-resolution T1-weighted anatomical images are acquired, followed by a 5-10 minute resting-state functional scan using an echo-planar imaging (EPI) sequence.
  • Preprocessing: Data undergoes slice-timing correction, realignment for head motion correction, normalization to a standard stereotaxic space (e.g., MNI), and spatial smoothing.
  • Seed-Based FC Analysis: A seed region (e.g., in the vmPFC for the DMN) is defined. The average BOLD time series from this seed is correlated with the time series of every other voxel in the brain to generate a connectivity map [15].
  • Independent Component Analysis (ICA): A data-driven approach used to identify large-scale networks like the FPN and DMN without a priori seed selection [20].
  • Statistical Analysis: Group-level comparisons (e.g., patients vs. controls) are conducted on connectivity strength to identify significant alterations.

Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) with fMRI

• Protocol Purpose: To establish a causal link between frontoparietal synchronization and working memory performance, and to visualize the underlying neural effects using fMRI [22].
• Detailed Workflow:
  • Stimulation Setup: Theta-frequency (6 Hz) tACS is applied simultaneously to two key nodes of the right FPN: the middle frontal gyrus (MFG) and the inferior parietal lobule (IPL). Conditions include synchronous (0° phase lag) and desynchronous (180° phase lag) stimulation, alongside a sham control.
  • Task Paradigm: Participants perform a verbal N-back task (e.g., 1-back and more demanding 2-back) and a simple choice reaction time task inside the fMRI scanner during stimulation.
  • fMRI Acquisition & Analysis: BOLD signals are collected concurrently. General Linear Model (GLM) analysis identifies task-related activation. Functional connectivity between FPN nodes is assessed using psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analysis.
  • Behavioral Correlation: Changes in reaction time and accuracy on the 2-back task are correlated with tACS-induced changes in BOLD activity and connectivity [22].

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) for Network Connectivity

• Protocol Purpose: To assess the functional connectivity of the FPN during rest and complex task performance using a portable, non-invasive optical neuroimaging technology [23].
• Detailed Workflow:
  • Optode Placement: fNIRS optodes are positioned over the frontal and parietal cortices based on the international 10-20 system to cover the FPN.
  • Resting-State Recording: Participants undergo a 5-minute resting-state recording while fixating on a crosshair.
  • Task Performance: Participants engage in a complex task, such as the Space Fortress video game, which demands working memory, attention, and cognitive control.
  • Data Processing: The concentration changes of oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) are calculated. The time series data from different channels are used to compute functional connectivity metrics, such as correlation coefficients, within the FPN.
  • Prediction Analysis: The strength of resting-state FPN connectivity is used as a predictor for subsequent complex task performance [23].

Clinical and Translational Applications

The distinct connectivity patterns of the FPN and DMN serve as critical biomarkers for understanding and diagnosing neuropsychiatric conditions. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), the DMN shows decreased activity and connectivity, closely overlapping with regions of amyloid plaque deposition, making it a promising early diagnostic biomarker [15] [19]. In contrast, conditions like schizophrenia and depression are often characterized by DMN hyperconnectivity and a failure to deactivate during tasks, which correlates with symptoms like rumination and impaired attention [15]. The competitive relationship between the FPN and DMN is crucial for optimal cognitive performance; when this anti-correlation breaks down, as observed in several disorders, it leads to attention lapses and poor task performance [17]. Furthermore, interventions such as pharmacological treatments and meditation have been shown to modulate DMN activity and FPN-DMN connectivity, suggesting these networks are viable targets for therapeutic development [15] [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Solutions for FPN/DMN Research.

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function in Research
Neuroimaging Equipment	3T/7T fMRI Scanner, fNIRS System, EEG/MEG System	Measures neural activity (BOLD signal, hemodynamic response, electrical activity) to map network connectivity and dynamics [18] [23].
Stimulation Devices	Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)	Provides causal intervention by exogenously modulating oscillatory activity in target networks to study effects on behavior and connectivity [22].
Analysis Software & Suites	SPM, FSL, CONN, DPABI, MATLAB Toolboxes	Processes and analyzes neuroimaging data for preprocessing, statistical modeling, and functional connectivity calculation [18] [20].
Cognitive Task Paradigms	N-back Task, Space Fortress, Resting-State Paradigm, Emotional Face Recognition Tasks	Engages specific cognitive functions (working memory, cognitive control) to probe FPN and DMN activity under controlled conditions [18] [17] [23].
Standardized Atlases & ROIs	Dosenbach's 160 ROI Atlas, Automated Anatomical Labeling (AAL) Atlas, Harvard-Oxford Atlas	Provides standardized definitions of brain regions for seed-based connectivity analysis and network quantification [18].

The discovery that an individual's pattern of brain connectivity can serve as a unique "fingerprint" has established a new frontier in cognitive neuroscience. Functional connectome fingerprinting leverages the fact that the pattern of functional connections between brain regions is both unique to each individual and stable over time, enabling remarkable accuracy in identifying individuals from a population [24]. While initial groundbreaking work demonstrated this principle using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the field has rapidly expanded to investigate whether these neural fingerprints can be consistently detected across different neuroimaging modalities, each with its own distinct physiological basis and technical characteristics [25] [26] [27]. This cross-modal validation is crucial not only for confirming the fundamental biological reality of brain fingerprints but also for translating this knowledge into practical applications across various settings, from clinical monitoring to pharmacological research.

The core hypothesis driving this field is that an individual's functional connectome (FC)—a comprehensive map of statistical dependencies between neural signals across different brain regions—contains idiosyncratic features that are as distinctive as a traditional fingerprint [28]. This review synthesizes evidence from three prominent neuroimaging techniques: fMRI, celebrated for its high spatial resolution; magnetoencephalography (MEG), which captures neurophysiological activity with millisecond temporal precision; and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), an emerging portable technology that measures cortical hemodynamics. By comparing the replicability of functional connectome fingerprints across these modalities, we provide a comprehensive assessment of the current state of cross-modal individual identification and its promising applications in neuroscience and medicine.

Experimental Evidence Across Modalities

fMRI Fingerprinting: The Gold Standard

Functional MRI has served as the foundation for connectome fingerprinting research, establishing benchmark performance levels against which other modalities are compared. The methodology typically involves calculating correlation matrices from blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) time series to represent functional connectivity between brain regions, which then serve as input for identification algorithms.

Table 1: fMRI Fingerprinting Performance Characteristics

Study	Subjects	Conditions	Accuracy	Key Findings
Finn et al. (2015) [24]	1,206	Resting-state & tasks	>90%	Established FC fingerprints as a reliable biometric
Cai et al. (2021) [24]	862	Resting-state pairs	99.5%	Used autoencoder to enhance uniqueness
Kaufmann et al. (2017) [24]	Adolescents	Longitudinal	High	Found fingerprints stabilize during development

The exceptional discriminative power of fMRI-based fingerprints stems from the concentration of unique connectivity profiles in higher-order association cortices, particularly the frontoparietal network (FPN) and default mode network (DMN) [29]. These networks exhibit the highest degree of inter-individual variability, providing the most distinctive features for identification. Furthermore, refinement techniques using autoencoder networks with sparse dictionary learning have successfully enhanced the uniqueness of individual connectomes by removing contributions from shared neural activities across individuals, pushing identification accuracy to nearly perfect levels (99.5% for rest-rest pairs) [24].

MEG Fingerprinting: The Temporal Dimension

MEG fingerprinting extends the concept into the domain of direct neurophysiological measurement, capturing the brain's rich electrophysiological dynamics with exceptional temporal resolution. The identification pipelines for MEG data typically involve either functional connectomes derived from phase-coupling measures or simpler spectral power features across frequency bands.

Table 2: MEG Fingerprinting Performance Across Studies

Study	Subjects	Features	Accuracy	Temporal Robustness
da Silva Castanheira et al. (2021) [26]	158	FC & PSD	94.9%-96.2%	Stable over weeks/months
Sareen et al. (2021) [27]	HCP Dataset	Phase-coupling	Variable by band	Higher in alpha/beta bands
Demeter et al. (2023) [30]	Multiple	Task vs. rest	Task > Rest	Improved in controlled tasks

Seminal work by da Silva Castanheira and colleagues demonstrated that both functional connectomes and power spectral density (PSD) estimates enable individual differentiation with accuracies rivaling fMRI (94.9% for connectomes, 96.2% for spectral features) [26]. Notably, their research revealed several distinctive advantages of MEG fingerprinting: successful identification from brief 30-second recordings, robustness across test-retest intervals averaging 201.7 days, and consistently high performance across frequency bands—with narrowband connectome fingerprinting achieving perfect (100%) accuracy in theta and beta bands [26]. Furthermore, task-based MEG recordings have demonstrated improved identifiability compared to resting-state, with strictly controlled tasks providing the most distinctive individual signatures [30].

fNIRS Fingerprinting: Portability and Practicality

As a relatively portable and cost-effective technology, fNIRS presents an attractive alternative for real-world fingerprinting applications. fNIRS measures cortical hemodynamics through changes in oxygenated (Oxy-Hb) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (Deoxy-Hb) concentrations, providing a physiological signal conceptually similar to fMRI but with practical advantages for specific populations and settings.

Research by PMC (2022) investigated whether fNIRS-based brain functional networks could serve as reliable fingerprints across different tasks (resting state, right-handed tapping, left-handed tapping, and foot tapping) [25]. Their experimental pipeline involved calculating Pearson's correlation-based functional connectivity from preprocessed fNIRS signals, followed by nearest-neighbor matching. The results demonstrated that cross-task identification worked generally well, with an interesting finding that accuracy under cross-task conditions was significantly higher than under cross-view conditions (comparing Oxy-Hb and Deoxy-Hb signals) [25]. This suggests that task-based functional patterns may provide more stable biometric features than the differential hemodynamic responses captured by separate oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin measurements.

The portability, relative motion tolerance, and lower cost of fNIRS systems make them particularly suitable for fingerprinting applications in special populations such as infants, children, and clinical populations where fMRI is impractical [31]. Furthermore, the ability to perform longer monitoring and repeated measurements in more naturalistic environments positions fNIRS as a promising modality for tracking connectome stability and changes in real-world contexts.

Comparative Analysis of Methodological Approaches

Experimental Protocols and Technical Considerations

Each neuroimaging modality requires specialized experimental protocols and analytical approaches to optimize fingerprinting performance, reflecting their distinct technical foundations and physiological sensitivities.

fMRI Protocols utilize the high spatial resolution of BOLD contrast imaging, typically employing multiband sequences (e.g., TR/TE=720/33.1ms) to capture whole-brain connectivity patterns [24]. The HCP-style protocols involve multiple resting-state and task-based conditions (working memory, motor, language, emotion) to capture comprehensive connectivity profiles. Preprocessing pipelines emphasize motion correction, spatial normalization, and global signal regression, with connectivity typically quantified through Pearson correlation between regional time series.

MEG Protocols leverage the millisecond temporal resolution of neurophysiological signals, requiring sophisticated source modeling to resolve spatial patterns. Studies typically employ Elekta Neuromag or CTF systems with 300+ sensors inside magnetically shielded rooms [26] [27]. The analytical workflow includes empty-room noise recording, signal space separation for artifact suppression, beamforming or minimum-norm estimation for source localization, and functional connectivity estimation through phase-based metrics (phase-locking value, imaginary coherence) or amplitude correlations within standard frequency bands.

fNIRS Protocols balance practical considerations with signal quality, using systems like LIGHTNIRS with multiple sources and detectors (typically 8×8 forming 20 channels) placed over targeted cortical regions [25]. The preprocessing chain involves converting optical density to hemoglobin concentrations via modified Lambert-Beer law, band-pass filtering (0.01-0.1Hz) to remove physiological noise, and baseline correction. Connectivity is then estimated through Pearson correlation between channel-wise hemodynamic time series.

Cross-Modal Concordance and Validation

Multimodal imaging studies provide direct evidence for the convergent validity of connectome fingerprints across different measurement techniques. Huppert and colleagues conducted simultaneous fNIRS-fMRI and fNIRS-MEG recordings during somatosensory stimulation, finding good spatial correspondence among the modalities (R=0.54-0.80 for amplitude correlations) [32]. The majority of differences across modalities were attributed to differential sensitivity to deeper brain sources, with MEG and fNIRS showing reduced sensitivity compared to fMRI for subcortical structures.

Sareen et al. conducted comprehensive cross-modality fingerprinting comparisons between MEG and fMRI, revealing certain degrees of spatial concordance, particularly within the visual system [27]. This suggests that despite measuring different physiological phenomena (electrophysiological activity versus hemodynamic responses), the resulting functional connectomes capture overlapping aspects of individual brain organization.

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

The fingerprinting process across modalities follows a shared conceptual workflow while employing modality-specific data processing techniques, as illustrated below.

Figure 1: Cross-Modal Fingerprinting Workflow

This unified workflow demonstrates the shared conceptual framework while highlighting modality-specific feature extraction approaches that capitalize on each technique's unique strengths.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methodological Components

Successful implementation of connectome fingerprinting requires careful selection of analytical components and research reagents tailored to each modality's characteristics.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Connectome Fingerprinting

Component	Function	Modality Specificity
Preprocessing Toolkits	BBCI toolkit (fNIRS) [25], FSL/FMRIPREP (fMRI), FieldTrip/Brainstorm (MEG)	Critical for artifact removal and signal quality enhancement
Connectivity Metrics	Pearson correlation (fMRI/fNIRS) [25], Phase-based measures (MEG) [27]	Determines functional network estimation quality
Parcellation Atlases	Desikan-Killiany (MEG) [26], Yeo networks (fMRI) [29]	Standardizes regional definitions across studies
Identification Algorithms	Nearest neighbor [25], Differential identifiability [27], Tangent space projection [33]	Directly impacts fingerprinting accuracy
Validation Frameworks	Within/between-session differentiation [26], Cross-task identification [25]	Ensures reliability and generalizability

The selection of appropriate functional connectivity measures is particularly crucial, with fingerprinting performance heavily dependent on this choice across all modalities. For MEG data, phase-coupling methods generally outperform amplitude-based measures, with the highest identification success rates observed in central frequency bands (alpha and beta) [27]. For fMRI and fNIRS, standard Pearson correlation provides robust results, though advanced sparse coding approaches can enhance individual uniqueness [24].

Advanced dimensionality reduction techniques have emerged as powerful tools for enhancing fingerprinting performance. Tensor decomposition methods like Tucker decomposition significantly increase matching rates compared to approaches that don't model the high-dimensionality of functional connectivity data, particularly for lower parcellation granularities [33]. Similarly, Riemannian geometry-based methods using tangent space projection enable more robust comparisons by accounting for the non-Euclidean nature of connectivity matrices [33].

Implications for Basic Research and Pharmaceutical Applications

The demonstrated cross-modal replicability of functional connectome fingerprints has profound implications for both basic neuroscience and applied pharmaceutical research, particularly in the emerging field of pharmacological brain fingerprinting.

In basic research, the robustness of individual identification across fMRI, MEG, and fNIRS provides compelling evidence that functional connectomes reflect fundamental, modality-independent properties of brain organization. This strengthens the theoretical foundation for investigating how these individual connectivity patterns emerge from genetic and environmental factors, how they stabilize across development, and how they relate to cognitive traits and behavioral variability [29]. The observation that discriminatory and predictive connections may represent distinct functional systems [29] opens new avenues for understanding the relationship between brain individuality and behavior.

In pharmaceutical research, pharmacological brain fingerprinting represents a promising approach for understanding individual variability in drug response. Recent work has demonstrated that psilocybin alters functional connectome fingerprints, making them more idiosyncratic and shifting distinctive features toward the default mode network [28]. This reconfiguration predicted subjective drug experiences, illustrating how fingerprinting approaches can bridge neural and phenomenological responses to pharmacological interventions. The portability of fNIRS makes it particularly suitable for monitoring these fingerprint changes in naturalistic settings or across multiple timepoints in clinical trials.

The convergent evidence across fMRI, MEG, and fNIRS modalities firmly establishes functional connectome fingerprinting as a robust, cross-validated phenomenon with significant implications for basic and applied neuroscience. While each modality offers distinct advantages—fMRI with superior spatial resolution, MEG with unmatched temporal precision, and fNIRS with practical portability—their collective ability to identify individuals based on unique connectivity patterns underscores the biological reality and stability of these neural fingerprints.

The cross-modal replication of fingerprinting effects represents more than methodological validation; it provides a foundational framework for future research into individualized brain function across health and disease. As analytical techniques continue to evolve, particularly through advanced dimensionality reduction and geometric approaches, the precision and utility of connectome fingerprints will likely increase, opening new possibilities for personalized medicine, pharmaceutical development, and fundamental understanding of what makes each human brain unique.

The concept of a "fingerprint" has transcended its dermatological origins to become a fundamental principle in biometrics and neuroscience, representing any stable, unique signature that can reliably identify an individual over time. The core premise of any fingerprinting system rests on two pillars: uniqueness (the signature differs between individuals) and persistence (the signature remains stable within an individual over time). While uniqueness has received considerable scientific attention, the question of long-term persistence—particularly over years—remains a critical area of investigation. Understanding the temporal stability of fingerprints is essential for advancing reliable biometric authentication systems, developing robust brain-based biomarkers for neurological and psychiatric disorders, and validating the forensic science that underpins modern identification methodologies. This guide objectively compares the evidence for long-term persistence across three key fingerprint modalities: physical fingerprints, functional brain fingerprints, and electrophysiological brain fingerprints, providing researchers with a synthesis of quantitative data, experimental protocols, and key reagents.

Comparative Evidence for Fingerprint Persistence Across Modalities

The evidence for long-term persistence varies significantly across different fingerprint modalities. The table below provides a quantitative comparison of key studies, highlighting the methods, time spans, and stability metrics reported in recent literature.

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Long-Term Fingerprint Persistence Across Modalities

Fingerprint Modality	Specific Measure	Time Span Studied	Key Stability Metric	Result	Citation
Functional Brain (fMRI)	Functional Connectome (FC)	Multiple sessions (varies)	Matching Rate (Within-condition)	11-36% improvement using Tucker decomposition	[34]
	Functional Connectome (FC)	Multiple sessions (varies)	Matching Rate (Between-condition)	43-72% improvement using Tucker decomposition	[34]
Electrophysiological (EEG)	Frontal Lobe Alpha Coherence	Avg. 7.11 ± 4.56 years	Interannual Canonical Correlation	0.792	[35] [36]
	Whole-Brain Data Variance	Avg. 7.11 ± 4.56 years	Shared Variance	62.7%	[35] [36]
	Occipital Lobe Beta Coherence	Avg. 7.11 ± 4.56 years	Remarkable Correlation	Not specified	[35] [36]
Physical Fingerprints	Fingerprint Similarity (Genuine Scores)	Up to 12 years	Trend in Match Scores	Significant decrease with increasing time interval	[37]
	Fingerprint Recognition Accuracy	Up to 12 years	Operational Stability	Stable accuracy up to 12 years	[37]

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Long-Term Persistence

Protocol for EEG Coherence Fingerprinting

This protocol is designed to assess the long-term stability of EEG coherence patterns, which reflect the functional connectivity between different brain regions.

• Objective: To examine the persistence of EEG coherence in delta, theta, alpha, and beta frequency bands across interhemispheric spatial domains and over extended interannual periods [35] [36].
• Participants: 28 participants with no history or presence of major neurological or psychiatric disorders [36].
• Data Acquisition:
  • Equipment: EEG recordings are performed according to the 10-20 international electrode placement system.
  • Procedure: Each participant undergoes at least two EEG recording sessions separated by a long-term interval. In the cited study, the average interval was 7.11 ± 4.56 years, with a range from 1.88 to 19.19 years [35] [36].
• Data Processing & Analysis:
  • Preprocessing: Data is filtered and cleaned of artifacts.
  • Feature Extraction: Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) coherence is calculated for fundamental brain waves (delta, theta, alpha, beta) across different brain lobes (frontal, occipital, etc.) [35] [36].
  • Stability Analysis:
    • Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA): Used to measure the relationship between the first and second EEG recordings. A high correlation indicates strong temporal stability [35] [36].
    • Variance Sharing: The proportion of shared variance between the two sessions is calculated to quantify information overlap [35] [36].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key steps in this experimental protocol:

Protocol for Functional Connectome Fingerprinting via Tensor Decomposition

This protocol uses advanced tensor decomposition to extract a unique signature from functional MRI (fMRI) data, assessing its stability across different cognitive states and over time.

• Objective: To uncover the functional connectome (FC) fingerprint of individuals using Tucker tensor decomposition and assess its accuracy in within- and between-condition matching [34].
• Participants & Data: 426 unrelated participants from the Young-Adult Human Connectome Project (HCP) dataset, which includes resting-state and task-based fMRI [34].
• Data Processing:
  • Parcellation: The brain is divided into multiple regions (e.g., 100, 200, 300) using a standard atlas.
  • FC Matrix Estimation: For each participant and session, a Functional Connectome (FC) matrix is estimated by calculating the correlation between the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) time series of every pair of brain regions. This results in a symmetric matrix of dimensions Number of Brain Regions x Number of Brain Regions [34].
• Tensor Construction and Analysis:
  • Tensor Building: FC matrices from all participants in the first acquisition session are concatenated to form a 3D tensor of dimensions Regions x Regions x Participants. A second tensor is built from the second session [34].
  • Tensor Decomposition: The tensors are decomposed using Tucker decomposition, a higher-order principal component analysis (PCA). This yields factor matrices, including a "participants factor matrix" that acts as the unique fingerprint for each individual [34].
  • Fingerprint Matching: The participant factor matrices from different sessions are compared. The matching rate—the percentage of participants correctly identified across sessions—quantifies the fingerprint's persistence [34].

The logical relationship and workflow of this protocol are summarized below:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Materials

Successfully conducting persistence studies requires a suite of specialized tools and reagents. The following table details essential components for research in this field.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Fingerprint Persistence Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example in Context
EEG System with 10-20 Electrodes	Records electrical activity from the scalp; essential for EEG coherence studies.	Used to collect initial and follow-up EEG data years apart to measure interannual coherence [35] [36].
fMRI Scanner (3T+)	Acquires Blood Oxygen Level-Dependent (BOLD) signals for mapping brain activity.	The customized Siemens 3T "Connectome Skyra" scanner used in the HCP project [38] [34].
Biometric Data Processing Software	Processes raw fingerprint images and computes match scores for longitudinal analysis.	Used to analyze longitudinal fingerprint records from 15,597 subjects over 5-12 years [37].
Tensor Decomposition Library	Implements Tucker and other decomposition algorithms for high-dimensional data analysis.	Critical for decomposing the functional connectome tensor to extract participant-specific factor matrices [34].
Standardized Brain Parcellation Atlas	Divides the brain into distinct regions for consistent functional connectivity analysis.	Used to create granular brain maps (e.g., 214 regions) for constructing Functional Connectome (FC) matrices [34].
Canonical Correlation Analysis Tool	A multivariate statistical method used to assess the relationship between two sets of variables.	Employed to measure the correlation between EEG data collected years apart [35] [36].

The body of evidence confirms that long-term fingerprint persistence is a measurable and robust phenomenon across multiple modalities, though the degree and nature of stability vary.

• Electrophysiological (EEG) Fingerprints demonstrate remarkable long-term stability, with frontal alpha coherence emerging as a particularly strong candidate for a neural fingerprint. The high canonical correlation (0.792) and significant shared variance (62.7%) over an average of seven years suggest that the core architecture of brain connectivity is highly stable in adults [35] [36].
• Functional Connectome (fMRI) Fingerprints show high distinctiveness, and their stability can be significantly enhanced by advanced computational methods like Tucker decomposition. This is evidenced by the 43-72% improvement in between-condition matching rates, revealing a stable neural signature that persists across different cognitive states [34].
• Physical Fingerprints present a more nuanced picture. While the underlying ridge pattern is persistent, the automated recognition of fingerprints can be influenced by time. Genuine match scores tend to decrease as the time interval between acquisitions increases, highlighting the impact of skin aging and acquisition conditions. Nevertheless, operational recognition accuracy remains stable for up to 12 years, supporting its continued use in forensic and security applications [37].

In conclusion, the evidence strongly supports the thesis that individuals possess unique signatures—whether neural or physical—that exhibit significant temporal stability over years. For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings underscore the potential of stable brain fingerprints as biomarkers for tracking disease progression or therapeutic outcomes over long periods. Future work should focus on standardizing protocols and validating these persistence metrics in larger, more diverse populations, including those with neurological and psychiatric disorders.

From Data to Identity: Methodological Advances and Practical Applications

In neuroscience and psychology research, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) has been the default statistical tool for estimating functional connectivity (FC), which quantifies the statistical relationships between brain regions' activity [39] [4]. This method is deeply embedded in analytical pipelines, with approximately 75% of connectome-based predictive modeling (CPM) studies relying solely on Pearson's r for validation [39]. However, this widespread dependence presents significant limitations for advancing individual identification and functional connectivity fingerprint research.

The Pearson correlation fundamentally measures zero-lag linear relationships between time series [4]. While computationally straightforward, this approach inherently struggles to capture the complex, nonlinear dynamics that characterize true neural interactions [39]. When used for feature selection and model evaluation in predictive modeling, Pearson's r faces three critical limitations: inability to capture complex nonlinear relationships, inadequate reflection of model errors (especially with systematic biases), and lack of comparability across datasets due to high sensitivity to data variability and outliers [39]. These limitations directly impact the reliability of functional connectome fingerprinting, where identifying stable, individual-specific patterns requires methods sensitive to the full complexity of brain network interactions.

Benchmarking 239 Pairwise Interaction Statistics

Comprehensive Framework for Comparison

A landmark 2025 benchmarking study addressed these limitations by systematically evaluating 239 pairwise interaction statistics from 49 distinct measures across six fundamental families [4]. This comprehensive analysis utilized resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data from 326 unrelated healthy young adults from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) S1200 release, employing the Schaefer 100×7 atlas for regional parcellation [4]. The benchmarking examined how FC network organization varied with the choice of pairwise statistic across multiple neurophysiologically relevant properties.

Table 1: Families of Pairwise Interaction Statistics Included in Benchmark

Statistic Family	Representative Examples	Key Characteristics
Covariance	Pearson's correlation	Measures zero-lag linear dependence; current standard
Precision	Partial correlation	Inverse covariance; emphasizes direct relationships
Distance	Distance correlation	Captures linear and nonlinear associations
Information Theoretic	Mutual information	Quantifies both linear and nonlinear dependence
Spectral	Coherence, Imaginary coherence	Frequency-specific interactions
Linear Model Fit	Slope, Correlation of residuals	Models specific relationship patterns

The analysis revealed substantial quantitative and qualitative variation across FC methods, demonstrating that different pairwise statistics capture fundamentally different aspects of network organization [4]. While covariance-based measures (like Pearson's r) showed moderate correlation with some other families (distance correlation and mutual information), they were often highly anticorrelated with precision and distance-based measures. This divergence confirms that the choice of pairwise statistic substantially influences the resulting FC matrix configuration.

Performance Across Neurophysiological Properties

The benchmarking evaluated how effectively each statistic recapitulated well-established features of brain networks, with results demonstrating significant variability across methods [4].

Table 2: Performance of Select Statistic Families on Key Brain Network Properties

Statistic Family	Structure-Function Coupling (R²)	Distance Relationship (∣r∣)	Individual Fingerprinting	Brain-Behavior Prediction
Covariance (Pearson)	Moderate	Moderate (~0.2-0.3)	Moderate	Moderate
Precision	High (up to 0.25)	Moderate	High	High
Distance	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Information Theoretic	Variable	Variable	High	High
Spectral	Low	Low (<0.1)	Low	Low

Structure-function coupling, which measures the alignment between functional connectivity and anatomical wiring (diffusion MRI-estimated structural connectivity), varied considerably across statistics [4]. Precision-based statistics, stochastic interaction, and imaginary coherence demonstrated the strongest structure-function coupling. This enhanced performance likely stems from their ability to partial out shared network influences, thereby emphasizing functional interactions more directly supported by structural connections.

The distance-relationship property, quantifying the inverse correlation between physical distance and connection strength, also showed notable variation. While most statistics displayed moderate inverse relationships (0.2 < ∣r∣ < 0.3), several exhibited weaker associations (∣r∣ < 0.1) [4]. This finding challenges the universality of this fundamental brain network property, suggesting it may be methodology-dependent.

For individual fingerprinting and brain-behavior prediction—crucial for functional connectivity fingerprint research—precision and information-theoretic statistics consistently outperformed conventional Pearson correlation [4]. These methods demonstrated enhanced capacity to differentiate individuals and predict individual differences in behavior, making them particularly valuable for personalized neuroscience applications.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

The benchmarking study utilized data from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) S1200 release [4] [38]. The HCP acquisition protocol employed a customized Siemens 3T "Connectome Skyra" scanner with advanced motion tracking systems to minimize head movement [38]. Resting-state fMRI data were collected using a whole-brain multiband gradient-echo echo-planar imaging (EPI) sequence optimized for imaging quality. For standardization, only fMRI data with left-to-right phase encoding were included in analyses.

Preprocessing followed HCP's minimal preprocessing pipelines, including artifact removal, motion correction, and registration to standard space [4]. Time series were extracted from the Schaefer 100×7 atlas (100 regions per hemisphere, grouped into 7 networks), though analyses were repeated across multiple atlases to ensure robustness.

Pairwise Statistic Computation

The 239 pairwise statistics were computed using the pyspi package, a comprehensive library for calculating statistical pairwise interactions from time series data [4]. The computational workflow maintained consistency across statistics through standardized implementation:

• Time series extraction for each brain region
• Pairwise computation of all selected statistics
• Matrix construction for each participant and statistic
• Quality control to ensure numerical stability

This systematic approach enabled direct comparison across diverse statistical families without confounding computational differences.

Evaluation Metrics and Validation

The benchmarking employed multiple evaluation criteria to assess each statistic's performance [4]:

• Structure-function coupling: Correlation between functional connectivity and diffusion MRI-based structural connectivity
• Individual fingerprinting: Ability to correctly identify individuals from a database using connectivity profiles
• Brain-behavior prediction: Capacity to predict individual differences in behavioral measures from connectivity patterns
• Biological alignment: Correspondence with multimodal neurophysiological networks (gene expression, receptor similarity, electrophysiology)
• Network topology: Identification of hub regions and community structure

Sensitivity analyses confirmed that findings were robust across different brain parcellations and processing choices [4].

Implications for Functional Connectivity Fingerprinting

Enhancing Individual Identification

Functional connectome fingerprinting leverages the unique patterns of brain connectivity that characterize individuals, with applications ranging from personalized treatment strategies for neurological disorders to forensic neuroscience [38]. The benchmark findings directly impact this field by identifying optimal pairwise statistics for maximizing subject identifiability.

Recent advances in fingerprinting methodologies include convolutional autoencoders and sparse dictionary learning applied to residual connectomes, which have achieved approximately 10% improvement over baseline group-averaged FC models [38]. These approaches isolate subject-specific features by subtracting shared connectivity patterns, then apply sparse coding to identify distinctive features. When combined with high-performing pairwise statistics like precision and information-theoretic measures, these methods significantly enhance fingerprint accuracy.

Cross-Condition Fingerprinting and Clinical Applications

The preservation of individual fingerprints across different cognitive states (resting-state vs. task conditions) is crucial for clinical applications. Research demonstrates that individual-specific patterns persist across both resting-state and task-based fMRI, including during working memory, motor, language, and emotion tasks [38]. This stability enables reliable identification regardless of cognitive state, though task conditions may enhance certain individual differences.

In clinical populations such as glioma patients, integrated structural-functional fingerprinting has revealed that tumors disrupt networks in both hemispheres, with left hemisphere lesions particularly altering homotopic connections in healthy tissues [40]. These disruptions are more readily detected using functional connectivity measures than structural measures alone, highlighting the importance of selecting optimal FC metrics for clinical biomarker development.

Computational Efficiency and Practical Implementation

For practical implementation in large-scale studies and clinical settings, computational efficiency is paramount. Research demonstrates that identifiability scores can be preserved with high accuracy even when sampling only 5% of functional edges through random projection methods [41]. This approach maintains statistical preservation of identifiability while dramatically reducing computational requirements, enhancing the clinical utility of functional connectomes.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Functional Connectivity Fingerprinting

Resource	Type	Function	Access
Human Connectome Project (HCP) S1200	Dataset	Gold-standard neuroimaging data for method development	Publicly available
pyspi package	Software Library	Computes 239 pairwise interaction statistics from time series	Open source
Schaefer 100×7 Atlas	Parcellation	Defines brain regions for network construction	Publicly available
PairInteraX Framework	Analytical Approach	Systematic pairwise interaction characterization	Reference implementation
Random Projection Algorithm	Computational Method	Reduces FC dimensionality while preserving identifiability	Custom implementation

The comprehensive benchmarking of 239 pairwise interaction statistics demonstrates that the dominant reliance on Pearson correlation substantially limits our ability to capture the complexity of functional brain networks. Precision-based and information-theoretic statistics consistently outperform conventional Pearson correlation across multiple dimensions relevant to individual identification, including structure-function coupling, individual fingerprinting, and brain-behavior prediction [4].

For functional connectivity fingerprint research, these findings suggest that methodological optimization should be prioritized alongside analytical advances. Future directions should include:

• Task-specific statistic selection based on research objectives (e.g., precision methods for structure-function studies)
• Multi-metric evaluation frameworks that combine complementary statistics
• Development of standardized pipelines incorporating high-performing alternatives to Pearson correlation
• Integration with machine learning approaches that leverage the unique strengths of different pairwise statistics

As the field moves toward personalized neuroscience applications and clinical biomarker development, adopting these optimized pairwise interaction statistics will be essential for unlocking the full potential of functional connectome fingerprinting.

This guide provides an objective comparison of modern Sparse Autoencoder (SAE) architectures, focusing on their performance and computational efficiency. Framed within the context of individual identification via functional connectivity fingerprints—a prominent research area in neuroscience—this review summarizes key experimental findings and details the methodologies used to evaluate different SAE variants.

Sparse dictionary learning is a powerful technique for decomposing complex, high-dimensional data into a collection of interpretable, elemental features. In computational neuroscience, it is increasingly used for functional connectome fingerprinting, where the goal is to identify unique, subject-specific patterns from brain imaging data such as fMRI [38]. Similarly, in machine learning, sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have emerged as a key tool for interpretable AI, designed to decompose the internal activations of large language models (LLMs) into human-understandable features [42] [43]. Both fields strive to overcome the challenge of representing vast information within a limited dimensional space, often leading to superposition, where single computational units (e.g., neurons or model components) encode multiple unrelated concepts [44]. The core objective of dictionary learning is to reverse this process, identifying a set of sparse, core features that faithfully reconstruct the original data.

Comparative Analysis of Sparse Autoencoder Architectures

Recent innovations in SAE architectures have focused on improving the trade-off between reconstruction fidelity, feature sparsity, and computational cost. The following table summarizes the performance and characteristics of several key architectures as evaluated by SAEBench, a comprehensive benchmarking suite [43].

Table 1: Comparison of Sparse Autoencoder Architectures and Performance

Architecture	Key Innovation	Best-Performing Metric	Computational Efficiency	Interpretability
Standard SAE [43]	Linear encoder + ReLU, L1 sparsity penalty [43]	Baseline for reconstruction	Lower for target widths	Good
TopK SAE [43]	Activates exactly K top features [43]	Reconstruction fidelity	Moderate	Good
Gated SAE [43]	Introduces gating mechanism to network structure [43]	Reconstruction fidelity	Moderate	Good
Matryoshka SAE [43]	Applies Matryoshka-style prefix loss training [43]	Feature disentanglement, concept detection	High	High (with scale)
Switch SAE [42] [44]	Mixture-of-Experts routing to specialist autoencoders [42]	Reconstruction vs. sparsity Pareto frontier	High (for fixed compute)	Good

The transition towards conditional computation models like the Switch SAE is particularly notable for scalability. Inspired by Mixture of Experts, it routes input activations to a single, specialized "expert" SAE, significantly reducing the computational load during training and inference. This allows the model to efficiently scale to a much larger number of total features [42] [45].

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking

Robust evaluation is critical for comparing SAE architectures. The SAEBench framework provides a standardized suite of eight diverse metrics that move beyond traditional proxy measures like the sparsity-fidelity trade-off [43].

The SAEBench Evaluation Framework

SAEBench organizes its evaluation around four fundamental capabilities of effective SAEs [43]:

• Concept Detection: Measures how well individual latents correspond to meaningful concepts, using Sparse Probing and metrics for Feature Absorption.
• Interpretability: Directly evaluates the human-understandability of learned latents, often using an LLM as a judge.
• Reconstruction: Quantifies how faithfully the SAE preserves and reconstructs the original input activations.
• Feature Disentanglement: Includes two novel metrics that assess how independently the SAE represents distinct, composable concepts.

This multi-faceted approach reveals performance trade-offs that are invisible to single-metric evaluation. For instance, while Matryoshka SAEs may slightly underperform on traditional reconstruction-sparsity metrics, they substantially outperform other architectures on feature disentanglement and concept detection, with this advantage growing as the SAE scales [43].

Core Formulation of a Sparse Autoencoder

The forward pass and loss function of a standard ReLU SAE establish the baseline against which new architectures are compared. For an input activation vector ( x ), the SAE produces a sparse hidden representation ( h ) and a reconstruction ( \hat{x} ) as follows [43]:

[ \begin{align} h &= \text{ReLU}(W_E x + b_E) \ \hat{x} &= W_D h + b_D \ \mathcal{L} &= \underbrace{\|x - \hat{x}\|_2^2}_{\text{reconstruction}} + \lambda \underbrace{\|h\|_1}_{\text{sparsity}} \end{align} ]

Here, ( WE ) and ( WD ) are the encoder and decoder weights, ( bE ) and ( bD ) are the biases, and ( \lambda ) is the coefficient controlling the sparsity penalty [43]. Architectural variants modify this core components—the activation function, the network structure, or the loss function—to improve performance.

Dot Language Visualizations

Sparse Autoencoder Training and Evaluation Workflow

Switch Sparse Autoencoder (Switch SAE) Architecture

Functional Connectome Fingerprinting with Dictionary Learning

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 2: Essential Tools and Resources for SAE Research and Functional Connectome Analysis

Item Name	Type	Primary Function	Example Source / Implementation
SAEBench	Software Benchmark	Standardized evaluation suite for comparing SAEs across 8 diverse metrics [43].	GitHub: adamkarvonen/SAEBench [43]
Dictionary Learning Repo	Software Library	Training and evaluation infrastructure for various SAE architectures [46].	GitHub: saprmarks/dictionary_learning [46]
nnsight	Software Library	Accessing, saving, and intervening on neural network activations for SAE training [46].	-
ActivationBuffer	Data Structure	Manages a buffer of model activations from input data for efficient SAE training [46].	Part of dictionary_learning library [46]
Human Connectome Project (HCP) Dataset	Neuroimaging Dataset	Publicly available, high-quality fMRI data for functional connectome fingerprinting research [38] [41] [34].	Washington University in St. Louis
ConstrainedAdam	Optimization Algorithm	A variant of the Adam optimizer that constrains decoder weights to have unit norm during SAE training [46].	Part of dictionary_learning library [46]
Pythia-70m-deduped	Pre-trained Model	A common LLM used for SAE training experiments and providing activations [46].	Hugging Face: EleutherAI/pythia-70m-deduped [46]

Performance and Scaling Results

Quantitative results demonstrate the distinct advantages of newer architectures. On the sparsity-reconstruction Pareto frontier, Switch SAEs deliver a substantial improvement for a given fixed training compute budget compared to standard architectures [42] [45]. This makes them a promising path toward scaling SAEs to billions of features, which is likely necessary for interpreting frontier AI models [44].

Furthermore, benchmark results reveal that performance on proxy metrics like reconstruction loss does not always predict performance on metrics aligned with practical applications. For example, Matryoshka SAEs show a significant and growing advantage on feature disentanglement and concept detection as scale increases, despite sometimes lagging on traditional metrics [43]. This underscores the value of comprehensive benchmarks like SAEBench for architectural comparisons.

The field of sparse dictionary learning is advancing rapidly, with new SAE architectures offering compelling trade-offs in performance, interpretability, and computational cost. For researchers in functional connectivity fingerprinting, these developments are directly relevant. The same principles of efficiently finding sparse, interpretable bases in high-dimensional data can be applied to both brain connectomes and artificial neural networks. The experimental data suggests that conditional computation models like the Switch SAE are highly effective for scalable dictionary learning, while architectures like the Matryoshka SAE excel at learning disentangled features. The choice of architecture should therefore be guided by the specific end-goal, whether it is maximizing reconstruction accuracy, achieving the best feature quality, or minimizing computational overhead.

Leveraging Tensor Decompositions for High-Dimensional Connectome Data

In the field of modern neuroscience, the brain connectome represents a comprehensive map of neural connections, providing a systems-level understanding of brain organization and function. The high-dimensional nature of connectome data, often represented as complex networks or matrices, presents significant analytical challenges. Tensor decompositions have emerged as powerful mathematical frameworks for reducing the dimensionality of such complex data while preserving its multi-way structure. These methods enable researchers to project high-dimensional connectomes into lower-dimensional spaces, facilitating the detection of individual-specific patterns known as functional connectivity fingerprints [34].

The ability to uniquely identify individuals based on their functional connectome fingerprint has demonstrated both the stability and distinctiveness of functional brain organization across scanning sessions [34] [4]. This capability has profound implications for personalized medicine, drug development, and our understanding of neurological disorders. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of tensor decomposition methods for analyzing high-dimensional connectome data, with a specific focus on applications in individual identification research.

Tensor Decomposition Approaches for Connectome Data

Core Methodological Frameworks

Three primary tensor decomposition approaches have been successfully applied to connectome data, each with distinct mathematical properties and practical implications for brain fingerprinting research.

Tucker Decomposition operates as a form of "higher-order principal component analysis" that decomposes a tensor into a core tensor multiplied by factor matrices along each mode. For connectome data arranged as brain regions × brain regions × subjects, this method yields two brain parcellation factor matrices containing cohort-level functional connectivity information and a participants factor matrix containing subject-specific information that serves as a functional fingerprint [34]. The model can be represented as: [ \mathcal{X} = \mathcal{G} \times1 A \times2 B \times_3 C ] where (\mathcal{X}) is the original tensor, (\mathcal{G}) is the core tensor, and (A), (B), and (C) are factor matrices.

CANDECOMP/PARAFAC Decomposition (CPD) models a tensor as a sum of rank-one tensors. For semi-symmetric connectome tensors, this is expressed as: [ \mathcal{X} \approx \sum{k=1}^K dk vk \circ vk \circ uk ] where (vk) represents network modes, (uk) represents subject modes, and (dk) represents scaling parameters [47]. This decomposition is particularly valuable when the goal is to extract interpretable components without orthogonal constraints on the subject modes.

Tensor-Network PCA (TN-PCA) represents a semi-symmetric tensor generalization of PCA specifically designed for brain network data. This method employs a CP decomposition with orthogonality constraints on the network modes but not on the subject modes, effectively balancing component interpretability with model flexibility [47] [48]. The resulting subject modes provide low-dimensional embeddings of each individual's brain network, which can be associated with human traits or used for identification.

Comparative Performance Analysis

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Tensor Decomposition Methods in Connectome Fingerprinting

Method	Mathematical Properties	Identification Accuracy	Computational Complexity	Key Advantages
Tucker Decomposition	Multi-linear, constrained core tensor	11-36% improvement over FC matrices in within-condition setting [34]	Higher (HOOI/HOSVD algorithms)	Superior for capturing complex multi-way interactions
CP Decomposition	Sum of rank-one tensors, no orthogonal constraints on subject modes	Comparable to Tucker for appropriate rank selection [47]	Moderate (alternating least squares)	Component interpretability, uniqueness guarantees
TN-PCA	Semi-symmetric, orthogonal network modes	81% classification accuracy for binge drinkers [48]	Lower (greedy power method)	Optimized for network data, superior predictive power for traits

Table 2: Fingerprinting Performance Across Different Experimental Conditions

Experimental Condition	Tucker vs FC Matrices	Tucker vs PCA	Optimal Parcellation Granularity	Key Findings
Within-Condition	11-36% improvement [34]	Significantly higher matching rates [34]	214 regions [34]	Tensor decomposition significantly increases functional connectome fingerprint
Between-Condition	43-72% improvement [34]	Higher or same level of matching rates [34]	214 regions [34]	Partially sampling resting-state time series sufficient for high accuracy

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

The foundational dataset for connectome fingerprinting research typically comes from the Human Connectome Project (HCP), which provides high-quality functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data from a large cohort of participants [34] [48]. Standard preprocessing pipelines include motion correction, temporal filtering, and removal of non-neural signals. For functional connectome construction, blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) time series are extracted from parcellated brain regions, and functional connectivity matrices are estimated using Pearson's correlation or more advanced pairwise statistics [4].

The preprocessed data is organized into a three-way tensor (\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{P \times P \times N}), where (P) represents the number of brain regions, and (N) represents the number of subjects. For multi-paradigm studies, this can be extended to a fourth-order tensor incorporating different task conditions [49]. The semi-symmetric nature of connectome tensors (where each frontal slice (X_{:,:,n}) is a symmetric matrix) enables the use of specialized decomposition approaches [47].

Fingerprinting Framework Implementation

The standard fingerprinting framework involves several methodical steps:

• Tensor Construction: For each fMRI condition, a tensor is constructed by concatenating all participants' functional connectivity matrices derived from scanning sessions [34].

• Decomposition: The tensor is decomposed using the chosen method (Tucker, CP, or TN-PCA), resulting in factor matrices that capture different aspects of the data [34] [47].

• Feature Extraction: The participants factor matrix (for Tucker) or subject modes (for CP/TN-PCA) are extracted as low-dimensional representations of each individual's unique connectivity profile [34] [48].

• Matching and Identification: The accuracy of identifying individuals across sessions is quantified using a metric called matching rate, which measures the proportion of correct identifications [34].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for connectome fingerprinting using tensor decompositions

Validation and Statistical Analysis

Validation of fingerprinting performance typically involves split-half reliability tests or leave-one-out cross-validation. The matching rate is calculated as the proportion of correctly identified individuals across scanning sessions [34]. Additional validation may include association tests with cognitive traits, demographic variables, or clinical status [48]. For statistical analysis, canonical correlation analysis, linear discriminant analysis, and predictive modeling are employed to establish relationships between connectome features and individual characteristics [48].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Tools and Resources for Connectome Fingerprinting Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools	Function/Purpose	Implementation Notes
Neuroimaging Data	HCP Dataset [34] [48]	Gold-standard reference data for method development	426+ unrelated participants recommended to minimize hereditary influences
Brain Parcellations	Schaefer (100-400 regions) [4]	Define nodes for network construction	Granularity of 214 regions optimal for fingerprinting [34]
Pairwise Statistics	Covariance, Precision, Distance [4]	Estimate functional connectivity between regions	Precision-based statistics show strong structure-function coupling
Tensor Decomposition Tools	Tucker (HOOI/HOSVD), CP-ALS, TN-PCA [47] [48]	Dimensionality reduction and feature extraction	TN-PCA specifically designed for semi-symmetric connectome tensors
Validation Metrics	Matching Rate [34]	Quantify identification accuracy	Measures proportion of correct cross-session identifications

Advanced Applications and Multi-Paradigm Integration

Dynamic Functional Connectivity

Tensor methods have been extended to model time-varying functional connectivity patterns through the incorporation of temporal dimensions. By stacking functional connectivity matrices within sliding windows, researchers can form a 3D tensor where the third dimension represents time [50]. This approach enables the capture of dynamic reconfiguration of functional networks, which may provide more sensitive fingerprints than static connectivity alone.

The dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) tensor (\mathcal{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{P \times P \times T}) can be analyzed using tensor decomposition to extract both spatial and temporal patterns of functional network organization [50]. For population-level analysis, this framework can be extended to a 4D tensor (\mathcal{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{P \times P \times T \times N}) that incorporates multiple subjects, enabling the learning of statistical models that represent majority variations of dFC patterns across populations [50].

Multi-Paradigm Data Fusion

Integrating data from multiple fMRI paradigms (e.g., resting-state, working memory, emotion tasks) enhances the capacity to capture comprehensive individual differences [49]. Tensor decomposition methods provide a natural framework for such data fusion through the construction of higher-order tensors.

The Multi-paradigm Sparse Tensor Decomposition (MSTD) method models a third-order tensor (\mathcal{T} \in \mathbb{R}^{I \times J \times K}) where (I) represents pairwise ROI correlations, (J) represents subjects, and (K) represents fMRI paradigms [49]. This approach incorporates L2,1-norm and L1-norm regularization to identify shared sparsity patterns across subjects, effectively extracting functional sub-networks that serve as embedded features for cognitive trait identification [49].

Diagram 2: Multi-modal tensor approaches for connectome analysis

Tensor decomposition methods provide powerful frameworks for extracting meaningful individual differences from high-dimensional connectome data. The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that Tucker decomposition, CP decomposition, and TN-PCA each offer distinct advantages for functional connectome fingerprinting applications. Tucker decomposition generally provides superior identification performance, while TN-PCA offers optimized predictive power for trait associations, and CP decomposition balances interpretability with computational efficiency.

The selection of an appropriate tensor method should be guided by specific research objectives, data characteristics, and analytical priorities. For pure identification tasks, Tucker decomposition with appropriate parcellation granularity (approximately 214 regions) provides optimal performance. For studies seeking to relate connectome features to cognitive traits or clinical outcomes, TN-PCA may be preferable. As the field advances, integration of dynamic functional connectivity patterns and multi-paradigm data fusion through tensor-based approaches will likely enhance the sensitivity and specificity of functional connectome fingerprints, with significant implications for personalized neuroscience and clinical applications.

The human brain's functional connectome—the pattern of synchronized neural activity across different regions—is now established as a unique identifier, much like a fingerprint. This discovery forms the basis of functional connectome fingerprinting, a rapidly evolving field within neuroimaging that seeks to identify individuals based on their unique patterns of functional connectivity [33]. The ability to reliably distinguish individuals using these patterns has profound implications for neuroscience, particularly in understanding cognitive variability, mental disorders, and personalized medicine.

A pivotal question in this field concerns the stability and dynamics of these fingerprints: Can the unique signature extracted from a brain at rest reliably predict how that same brain will function during various cognitive or motor tasks? This review synthesizes current research on cross-state and cross-task identification, objectively comparing the performance of various methodological approaches. We provide a detailed analysis of experimental protocols, performance data, and the key computational tools that are pushing the boundaries of this promising research domain.

Experimental Protocols and Performance Comparison

Core Methodological Approaches

Researchers have developed several sophisticated computational frameworks to test the boundaries of functional connectome fingerprinting across different brain states. The following protocols represent the forefront of this research.

• Activity Flow Mapping: This approach builds empirically derived network models to test the functional relevance of resting-state versus task-state functional connectivity (FC). The core mechanism involves a propagation rule, where the activity of a distal node influences a target node via a connection weight, and an activation rule, where incoming activity is summed before passing through a function to determine the output activity. The algorithm is formalized as ( Pj = \sum{i \neq j \in v} Ai F{ij} ), where ( Pj ) is the predicted mean activation for region *j* in a given task, ( Ai ) is the actual mean activation for region i, and ( F_{ij} ) is the FC estimate between them. This model is used to predict independent cognitive task activations, with accuracy assessed by comparing predicted to actual empirical activation patterns using Pearson correlation and R² (coefficient of determination) [51].

• Connectome-to-Connectome (C2C) Transformation: This framework models the brain's functional reorganization from one connectome state to another. It uses a transformation model to accurately predict an individual's task-related connectomes (e.g., for memory or attention tasks) from their resting-state connectome. The model is trained on data from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) and can predict task-specific connectomes across seven different cognitive states with a high degree of individual specificity [52].

• Tensor Decomposition and Riemannian Geometry: To address noise and high dimensionality in traditional FC fingerprinting, this method uses tensor decomposition (Tucker decomposition) to enhance the stability and distinctiveness of functional connectome fingerprints across multiple fMRI conditions. It examines both within-condition and between-condition fingerprinting, significantly increasing matching rates, particularly for lower parcellation granularities. A complementary approach uses Riemannian geometry (tangent space projection) to refine fingerprints when multiple data acquisition sessions are available, preserving individual-specific patterns by mapping FC matrices onto a tangent space for more robust comparisons [33].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The table below summarizes the performance outcomes of the primary methodologies discussed, based on experimental data from sources such as the Human Connectome Project.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Cross-State Identification Methods

Methodology	Prediction Target	Key Performance Metric	Reported Outcome	Supporting Evidence
Activity Flow Mapping	Task-evoked brain activations in 24 task conditions	Prediction accuracy vs. resting-state FC baseline	Task-state FC improved prediction accuracy across all 24 tasks and 360 brain regions [51].	Human Connectome Project data [51]
C2C Transformation	Individual's task-related connectomes from resting-state connectome	Accuracy of connectome generation and behavior prediction	C2C-transformed task connectomes improved behavioral predictions; achieved similar performance with a third of the subjects vs. resting-state alone [52].	Human Connectome Project data [52]
Tensor Decomposition	Individual identity across multiple fMRI conditions	Matching rate (identifiability)	Significantly increased matching rates compared to methods not modeling data high-dimensionality [33].	Thesis research [33]
Information Transfer Mapping	Transfer of task-rule information	Reliability of information transfer prediction	Transfer of diverse task-rule information could be predicted based on activity flow through resting-state network topology [53].	Nature Communications study [53]

A critical finding across studies is that despite the overall network architecture being highly similar between rest and task states, the small, task-related changes in functional connectivity are functionally significant. One study demonstrated that these changes are essential for accurately predicting task activations, underscoring that the dynamic reconfiguration of the connectome, however modest, is a crucial mechanism for supporting cognitive processes [51].

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

Activity Flow Mapping for Cross-Task Prediction

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow of activity flow mapping, a foundational method for understanding how cognitive task information is transferred through intrinsic network architecture.

This process demonstrates a cortex-as-receiver framework, where resting-state FC provides the channels through which task-evoked activity patterns flow [53]. The validation step confirms that the intrinsic network topology is not just correlational but is mechanistically relevant for cognitive information processing.

Connectome-to-Connectome (C2C) State Transformation

The Connectome-to-Connectome (C2C) model provides a framework for predicting one brain state from another, which is fundamental for cross-state identification. The workflow is as follows:

This modeling approach quantitatively demonstrates how the brain reconfigures between cognitive states [52]. Its ability to amplify behaviorally relevant individual differences from the resting-state connectome is a major strength for applications in personalized medicine.

Successful research in cross-state and cross-task identification relies on a suite of data, software, and methodological tools. The following table catalogues the essential components of the research pipeline.

Table 2: Essential Resources for Cross-State Functional Connectivity Research

Resource Category	Specific Tool / Dataset	Function in Research
Major Public Datasets	Human Connectome Project (HCP) [51] [52] [54]	Provides large-scale, high-quality data including resting-state and task fMRI for developing and validating models.
	UK Biobank, ABCD Study [54]	Offers large, diverse datasets for training foundation models and testing generalizability.
Computational Models & Software	Actflow Toolbox [51]	Implements activity flow mapping algorithms to predict task activations from connectivity.
	Tensor Decomposition / Riemannian Geometry [33]	Enhances identifiability of FC fingerprints by addressing high dimensionality and noise.
	NeuroSTORM [54]	A foundation model for fMRI analysis pre-trained on millions of frames for transferable feature learning.
Analytical Frameworks	Information Transfer Mapping [53]	Tests hypothesis that resting-state network topology describes mappings for task information transfer.
	C2C Transformation Modeling [52]	Models functional reorganization from one connectome state to another in response to task goals.
Validation Paradigms	Cognitive Task Batteries (e.g., 24 conditions in HCP) [51]	Provides ground-truth data for testing prediction accuracy of models across diverse cognitive domains.
	Behavioral Measures [52]	Used to assess the real-world relevance of predicted connectomes and their individual differences.

The empirical evidence confirms that functional connectivity fingerprints are robust across different brain states. While the intrinsic resting-state architecture provides a powerful baseline for identification, incorporating the subtle, task-specific reconfigurations of the connectome consistently improves the accuracy of predicting individual task activations and associated behaviors.

The trajectory of the field points toward several future developments. The rise of foundation models like NeuroSTORM, pre-trained on massive, multi-source datasets, promises to enhance reproducibility and transferability across diverse fMRI applications [54]. Furthermore, the application of more advanced mathematical frameworks, such as tensor decomposition and Riemannian geometry, is set to further refine our ability to extract stable, individual-specific signatures from the noisy, high-dimensional data of functional connectomes [33]. These advances will solidify the role of cross-state identification in providing biologically grounded biomarkers for neurological and psychiatric disorders, ultimately bridging the gap between basic neuroscience and clinical application.

Individual identification, the capability to reliably distinguish one person from another, forms a cornerstone of modern security systems and clinical research. While fingerprint recognition has long served as the gold standard, emerging research into functional connectivity fingerprints (FCFs)—unique, individualized patterns of brain network connectivity—promises to revolutionize both domains. These FCFs leverage the innate individual variability in brain functional organization, which proves sufficiently robust and reliable to identify specific individuals from a large group with remarkable accuracy [1]. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of these identification technologies, evaluating their performance characteristics, experimental protocols, and practical applications across security and clinical trial contexts, with particular emphasis on their longitudinal stability and reliability.

Technology Performance Comparison

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics of Identification Technologies

Technology	Sample Size	Accuracy Rate	Time Interval Tested	Key Performance Factors
Functional Connectivity Fingerprints	126 subjects [1]	92.9-94.4% (rest-to-rest) [1]	Same day to 1.5 years [55]	Frontoparietal network distinctiveness [1]
10-Finger Fusion Fingerprint	15,597 subjects [56]	Stable accuracy up to 12 years [56]	5-12 years [56]	Fingerprint image quality [56]
Single Fingerprint	15,597 subjects [56]	Decreasing genuine match scores over time [56]	5-12 years [56]	Subject's age, time interval [56]
Facial Recognition	400+ participants [57]	Score fluctuations over time [57]	2.5 years [57]	Controlled measurement conditions [57]

Table 2: Longitudinal Stability Assessment Across Modalities

Characteristic	Functional Connectivity Fingerprints	Traditional Fingerprints	Facial Biometrics
Short-Term Stability	High (AUC 0.97 same-day) [55]	High [56]	Moderate (daily fluctuations) [57]
Long-Term Stability	Moderate (AUC 0.91 at 1.5 years) [55]	High (stable up to 12 years) [56]	Decreasing accuracy over time [57]
Critical Networks/Features	Frontoparietal, Default Mode [1]	Ridge pattern persistence [56]	Multiple facial perspectives [57]
Aging Impact	Minimal difference youth vs. adults [55]	Significant impact with poor quality [56]	Measurable decline over time [57]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Functional Connectivity Fingerprinting Protocol

The standard protocol for establishing functional connectivity fingerprints involves several meticulously controlled stages. Data acquisition begins with resting-state fMRI collection using high-resolution scanners, typically employing protocols from the Human Connectome Project with two rest sessions containing two runs of 1,200 brain volumes each [1]. Participants undergo scanning across multiple sessions on different days to assess temporal stability [1].

Preprocessing follows rigorous pipelines including motion correction, normalization, and temporal filtering. The core analysis employs functional brain atlases consisting of 268 nodes covering the whole brain, with the Pearson correlation coefficient calculated between the timecourses of each possible node pair to construct symmetrical connectivity matrices [1].

Identification algorithms then compare connectivity matrices using similarity metrics. The critical innovation involves iterative matching where a target session connectivity matrix is selected and compared against database matrices to find the maximally similar match using Pearson correlation between vectors of edge values [1]. This process emphasizes connections in the medial frontal and frontoparietal networks, which have proven most distinctive for individual identification [1].

Longitudinal Fingerprint Recognition Protocol

The longitudinal fingerprint recognition methodology employs a substantially different approach tailored to its physical biometric characteristics. Data collection involves capturing 10-print records from subjects over extended periods, with the foundational study utilizing records from 15,597 subjects, each with at least five 10-print records over a minimum 5-year time span [56]. The acquisition uses operational fingerprint databases with standardized law enforcement-grade capture devices.

The analysis employs multilevel statistical models with specific covariates including time interval between fingerprints, subject's age, sex, race, and critically, fingerprint image quality [56]. The protocol examines both genuine pairs (two impressions from the same finger) and impostor pairs (impressions from different fingers) to calculate similarity scores and error rates [56].

Longitudinal assessment tracks the tendency of fingerprint similarity scores over time, specifically analyzing the decrease in genuine match scores as the time interval increases. The stability of recognition accuracy is evaluated across the maximum 12-year time span available in the dataset, with particular attention to how quality impacts temporal stability [56].

Clinical Trial Biometric Linkage Protocol

A specialized protocol has emerged for clinical trial applications using affordable, sub-£50 fingerprint sensors integrated with electronic data collection platforms. The system consists of two components: the Keppel App for Android, which provides an interface between ODK Collect app and fingerprint readers, and the Keppel Command Line Interface, a Java application for template comparison [58].

The process captures ANSI INCITS 378-2004 fingerprint templates during electronic data collection, storing encoded text representations of fingerprint characteristics rather than actual images [58]. For identity confirmation, the CLI compares any two templates, generating a unitless similarity score (S) that determines match status against a predetermined threshold [58].

This approach specifically addresses challenges in resource-restricted settings where official identification credentials are unavailable, enabling reliable linkage of case reporting forms collected at different times while complying with data protection regulations [58].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Identification Technology Development

Item	Function	Example Specifications
High-Resolution fMRI Scanners	Functional connectivity data acquisition	Human Connectome Project protocols; 1,200 brain volumes per session [1]
268-Node Brain Atlas	Standardized brain parcellation	Defined based on healthy subjects; covers whole brain [1]
10-Print Fingerprint Scanners	Law enforcement-grade fingerprint capture	Optical or capacitive sensors; flat and rolled capture modes [57]
Mantra MFS100 Biometric Scanner	Clinical trial fingerprint acquisition	ANSI INCITS 378-2004 template generation; cost <£50 [58]
K13 Photo Studio	Facial reference image capture	13 cameras; standardized lighting and background [57]
Electronic Data Collection Platforms	Field data collection integration	ODK Collect, KoBoToolbox, SurveyCTO compatibility [58]

Application in Clinical Trial Design

The integration of biometric technologies into longitudinal clinical trial design addresses fundamental challenges in participant identification and data linkage. Traditional trials face problems where different case report forms nominally relating to the same participant may actually derive from distinct individuals, compromising study design and conclusions [58]. Biometric linkage ensures that longitudinal data integrity is maintained throughout extended trial periods.

Functional connectivity fingerprints offer particular promise for neuropharmacological trials and neurological disorder research, where both treatment efficacy and brain network changes can be simultaneously monitored. The technology enables researchers to control for individual neurobiological variability while tracking intervention-induced changes in functional connectivity patterns [1] [4].

For resource-restricted settings, fingerprint-based systems provide a practical solution for maintaining participant identity across multiple visits. With over one billion people lacking official identification credentials globally, these approaches enable compliant research participation while ensuring data integrity and supporting GDPR-mandated participant rights management [58].

The comparative analysis reveals distinctive advantages across identification technologies. Functional connectivity fingerprints offer unprecedented capabilities for linking neurobiological individuality with behavioral and cognitive traits, with frontoparietal networks providing remarkable discriminative power [1]. Traditional fingerprint recognition maintains superior longitudinal stability over extended periods up to 12 years, though performance is highly quality-dependent [56]. Emerging clinical trial integration platforms demonstrate how affordable biometric sensors can transform research in resource-limited settings [58].

Future development should focus on multimodal integration, combining the neurobiological specificity of FCFs with the practical stability of fingerprints. Additionally, standardization of template quality assessment and longitudinal recalibration protocols will enhance reliability across technologies. As these identification methods evolve, they will increasingly support both secure biometric applications and robust longitudinal clinical research designs, ultimately strengthening the veracity of scientific inferences across diverse populations and settings.

Refining the Signal: Overcoming Technical and Computational Challenges

Optimizing Preprocessing and Feature Selection for Maximum Discriminatory Power

Functional connectivity (FC) fingerprinting has emerged as a powerful paradigm in neuroscience, establishing that an individual's pattern of brain-wide functional connections serves as a highly specific neural signature. This signature, or "fingerprint," is sufficiently unique to accurately identify individuals from large populations [1]. The foundational work by Finn et al. demonstrated that these connectivity profiles are both robust and reliable, achieving identification accuracy rates exceeding 90% across scanning sessions and even between different brain states (rest versus task conditions) [1]. This discovery marked a critical shift from group-level neuroimaging analyses toward single-subject investigations, opening new avenues for personalized biomarker development in neurological and psychiatric disorders [38].

The clinical implications of this research are particularly profound for neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its precursor, mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Researchers have successfully leveraged machine learning classification based on FC patterns to distinguish patients with MCI from healthy elderly individuals with impressive accuracy (up to 93.75% when combining functional and structural connectivity features) [59]. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that individualized FC biomarkers can predict clinical symptom improvement following therapeutic interventions such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in AD patients [60]. These advances highlight the translational potential of connectome fingerprinting, yet they also underscore a critical methodological challenge: the optimization of preprocessing pipelines and feature selection strategies to maximize discriminatory power while ensuring biological interpretability and clinical utility.

Comparative Analysis of Functional Connectivity Estimation Methods

The process of estimating FC from raw fMRI data involves numerous methodological choices, each significantly impacting the resulting fingerprint's discriminatory power. A comprehensive benchmarking study evaluating 239 different pairwise interaction statistics revealed substantial quantitative and qualitative variation in FC network organization depending on the chosen estimation method [4].

Key Families of Pairwise Statistics

Method Family	Representative Measures	Fingerprinting Accuracy	Structure-Function Coupling (R²)	Best Use Cases
Covariance	Pearson's correlation	Moderate to High	~0.15	General-purpose fingerprinting; established baseline
Precision	Partial correlation, Inverse covariance	High	~0.25 (Highest)	Direct connectivity estimation; controlling for common inputs
Distance	Euclidean, Manhattan	Moderate	~0.05	Capturing nonlinear relationships
Spectral	Coherence, Phase synchronization	Moderate	~0.10	Oscillatory coupling across frequency bands
Information Theoretic	Mutual information, Entropy	Variable	~0.08	Nonlinear dependence detection
Stochastic Interaction		High	~0.25 (Highest)	Complex dynamical systems modeling

Precision-based methods consistently outperform other approaches across multiple benchmarking metrics, demonstrating superior structure-function coupling and high fingerprinting accuracy [4]. These methods attempt to model and remove the common network influences on two nodes, thereby emphasizing direct functional relationships rather than correlations mediated through third parties. This property appears particularly valuable for identifying individual-specific connectivity patterns that are not confounded by shared network architecture.

Covariance-based methods, particularly Pearson's correlation (the most widely used FC measure), perform reliably well across multiple applications and remain a solid baseline choice [4]. However, their susceptibility to common input effects may limit their discriminatory power in certain populations or brain states.

Impact on Network Organization

The choice of pairwise statistic fundamentally alters the apparent organization of resulting FC networks. Precision-based methods tend to identify hubs predominantly in higher-order association cortices (default mode and frontoparietal networks), while covariance methods show more distributed hub patterns including primary sensory and motor regions [4]. This has direct implications for feature selection, as the most discriminatory networks vary depending on the FC estimation method employed.

Feature Selection Strategies for Discriminatory Power

Not all functional connections contribute equally to subject identification. Strategic feature selection is therefore essential for maximizing fingerprinting accuracy while reducing dimensionality. Research has consistently identified differential power and group consistency as key metrics for identifying features with high discriminatory potential [1].

Network-Based Feature Selection

Brain Network	Discriminatory Power	Behavioral Prediction Utility	Key Regions	Clinical Relevance
Frontoparietal	Highest (98-99% accuracy between rest sessions) [1]	High for fluid intelligence [1]	Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, Posterior parietal cortex	Executive function, cognitive control
Medial Frontal	High	Moderate	Anterior cingulate cortex, Medial prefrontal cortex	Decision-making, error detection
Default Mode	High	Limited overlap with discriminatory edges [29]	Posterior cingulate cortex, Medial prefrontal cortex, Angular gyrus	Self-referential thought, memory
Subcortical-Cerebellar	Moderate	Variable	Basal ganglia, Thalamus, Cerebellum	Motor control, habit learning
Visual/Motor	Low	High for domain-specific behaviors [29]	Primary visual cortex, Motor cortex	Sensory processing, motor execution

The frontoparietal network consistently emerges as the most distinctive for individual identification, with accuracy rates of 98-99% when used alone to identify subjects across rest sessions [1]. This network, comprised of higher-order association cortices in the frontal, parietal and temporal lobes, exhibits high inter-individual variability while maintaining intra-individual stability across scanning sessions and brain states.

Interestingly, recent evidence suggests a substantial divergence between connectivity signatures optimal for participant identification versus those predictive of behavior [29]. While frontoparietal networks support both fingerprinting and prediction of cognitive traits like fluid intelligence, the specific edges involved show minimal overlap at the single-connection level [29]. This dissociation necessitates tailored feature selection strategies depending on the specific research objective—subject identification versus behavioral prediction.

Edgewise Contribution Quantification

The differential power (DP) metric quantifies each connection's ability to distinguish individuals by measuring how characteristic that edge tends to be across scanning sessions [1]. Edges with high DP maintain similar values within an individual across conditions but different values across individuals. Approximately 28% of high-DP edges are located within and between frontoparietal networks, while another 48% connect these networks to other systems [1], suggesting that integration between higher-order cognition networks and the rest of the brain is particularly distinctive at the individual level.

Experimental Protocols for Fingerprinting Optimization

Foundational Identification Protocol

The standard fingerprinting protocol established by Finn et al. involves constructing full correlation matrices from parcellated brain regions (typically 268-300 nodes) and computing similarity between sessions using Pearson correlation [1].

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Data Acquisition: Acquire resting-state or task-based fMRI data across multiple sessions (ideally on different days) [1]
• Preprocessing: Implement standard preprocessing pipelines (motion correction, normalization, filtering) with careful attention to denoising strategies [38]
• Brain Parcellation: Apply standardized atlases (e.g., Shen 268-node atlas) to extract time courses from predefined regions [1]
• Connectivity Matrix Construction: Calculate pairwise correlations between all regional time courses to create individual connectivity matrices [1]
• Identification Testing: Iteratively compare target session matrices against database sessions using similarity metrics (Pearson correlation) [1]
• Validation: Employ non-parametric permutation testing to assess statistical significance against chance levels [1]

Advanced Deep Learning Protocol

Recent advances incorporate deep learning architectures to enhance fingerprinting accuracy. The convolutional autoencoder with dictionary learning approach demonstrates approximately 10% improvement over baseline FC models [38].

Key Implementation Details:

• Convolutional Refinement: Autoencoders learn shared connectivity structures across subjects, with residual connectomes highlighting individual-specific features [38]
• Sparse Dictionary Learning: Decomposes residual connectomes into compact, interpretable components that maximize inter-subject discriminability [38]
• Cross-Condition Validation: Testing identification accuracy across both resting-state and task-based conditions ensures robustness [38]

Individualized FC Protocol for Clinical Applications

For clinical populations with high heterogeneity, such as Alzheimer's disease spectrum disorders, individualized FC approaches outperform traditional template-based methods [61] [60].

Implementation Workflow:

• Individual-Specific Parcellation: Divide each participant's cortex into functionally meaningful regions based on their unique brain activity patterns rather than standard templates [60]
• Multi-Task Learning: Apply sparse convex alternating structure optimization (MTL-sCASO) to resolve individual-specific FC patterns [61]
• Feature Selection: Use least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) to identify most discriminatory connections [61]
• Classification/Prediction: Implement support vector machines for diagnostic classification or symptom prediction [61] [60]

This individualized approach has achieved remarkable classification accuracy of 91.8% for obstructive sleep apnea patients versus healthy controls and 81.3% for discriminating between OSA patients with and without mild cognitive impairment [61].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Research Tool	Function	Example Implementation
Human Connectome Project Dataset	Gold-standard reference dataset for method development	S1200 release with 1,206 subjects; resting-state and task fMRI [38]
Standardized Brain Atlases	Region definition for time course extraction	Shen 268-node atlas; Schaefer 100x7 parcellation [1] [4]
Preprocessing Pipelines	Data quality control and denoising	FMRIPREP; DPABI; custom motion correction and filtering [60]
Pairwise Interaction Statistics	FC matrix construction	PySPI package (239 statistics across 6 families) [4]
Machine Learning Frameworks	Classification and prediction	Support Vector Machines; Convolutional Autoencoders; Graph Neural Networks [59] [38]
Identification Metrics	Quantifying fingerprinting accuracy	Differential Power; Group Consistency; Subject identifiability [1]
Statistical Validation Tools	Significance testing against chance	Non-parametric permutation testing; split-half reliability [1]

Optimizing preprocessing and feature selection strategies is paramount for maximizing the discriminatory power of functional connectivity fingerprints. The evidence consistently indicates that precision-based FC estimation methods combined with targeted selection of frontoparietal and default mode network features yield superior identification accuracy. The dissociation between connectivity patterns optimal for subject identification versus behavioral prediction necessitates careful consideration of research objectives when designing analytical pipelines. As the field advances toward clinical applications, individualized parcellation approaches and deep learning architectures offer promising avenues for enhancing both accuracy and interpretability. The continued refinement of these methodologies will be essential for realizing the potential of connectome fingerprinting as a biomarker for personalized medicine in neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Functional connectome fingerprinting (FCF) has emerged as a powerful approach for mapping and understanding the unique patterns of brain connectivity that characterize individuals [38]. The core premise, established by seminal work, is that an individual's functional connectivity (FC) pattern is unique and can serve as a reliable "fingerprint" to identify that person from a population [38] [41]. This capability holds significant promise for personalized medicine, potentially offering biomarkers for neurological and psychiatric disorders [38] [41].

However, the reliability of these functional connectomes, particularly the "edges" representing statistical relationships between brain regions, is paramount for clinical utility [41]. Edge reliability faces challenges from multiple sources, including scan length, data quality, and computational constraints [41]. This guide objectively compares how these factors impact the fidelity and identifiability of functional connectivity fingerprints, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies to optimize their protocols.

Experimental Comparisons: Quantitative Impact of Scan Length and Quality Control

Impact of Scan Length and Data Retention on Identifiability

Recent research demonstrates that identifiability scores, which quantify how well a subject can be distinguished from others, can be effectively preserved even with substantial data reduction. One study explored a random projection method that subsamples functional edges, retaining only a proportion of the data [41].

Table 1: Identifiability Score Preservation with Functional Edge Subsampling

Edge Retention Probability (p)	Approximate Identifiability Score (Ī)	Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	Preservation of Original Identifiability
1%	Varies by dataset	Within 2 decimal places	High accuracy, tight concentration of mean
5%	Varies by dataset	Very low	Extremely well-preserved
100% (Full Dataset)	Baseline (I)	N/A	Reference

Empirical results on synthetic and neuroimaging data showed that the identifiability score (I) could be approximated with high accuracy even when the retention probability (p) was as low as 0.05 (5%) [41]. The averages of the approximate identifiability scores (Ī) were accurate up to about four decimal places compared to the original score, with very low root mean square error, indicating a tight concentration around the true mean [41].

Quantitative Quality Control Metrics for fMRI Data

Quality control is an essential step in fMRI data acquisition and analysis, with specific quantitative metrics determining data usability [62]. The Buckner lab has developed rough guidelines for determining whether a dataset is usable, specifically for Siemens 3T 12 channel data from adults [62].

Table 2: Key Quantitative QC Metrics for fMRI Data Usability

QC Metric	Good Data Threshold	Bad Data Threshold	Interpretation & Notes
Slice SNR	> 150	< 99	General 'goodness' measure; low values flag motion or scanner artifacts.
Max Absolute Motion	< 1.49 mm	> 2 mm	Maximum absolute head motion.
Movements (> 0.5mm)	< 5	> 5	Number of movements greater than 0.5mm (RMS of movement in 3D space).
Voxel SNR	N/A	N/A	More dominated by scanner noise than slice SNR; useful for comparison.
Mean/Max Relative Motion	N/A	N/A	Movement relative to the previous volume (vs. first volume).

These parameters serve as a starting point for determining data usability. However, the guidelines note that creating study-specific standards may be necessary for non-typical protocols, such as those used with children, patient populations, or different scanner coils [62].

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Random Projection for Identifiability Preservation

This protocol, designed to approximate identifiability scores from subsampled data, is based on work presented in [41].

Objective: To test whether the identifiability score (I) can be preserved using only a random subset of functional edges rather than the entire large-scale functional connectome, thereby reducing computational cost.

Methodology:

• Data Input: Begin with a similarity scores matrix X of dimensions m × n, where m is the number of similarity scores (functional edges) for a pair of brain regions, and n is the number of patients. The columns of X are normalized to be unit vectors with zero mean.
• Baseline Identifiability Calculation: Compute the original identifiability matrix A as the matrix of correlations of the columns of X. The original identifiability score I is defined as I = 1 - μ(A_off), where μ(A_off) is the average of the off-diagonal entries of A.
• Random Projection: Create a random projection matrix S.
  • Generate a random vector s = (s1, …, sn) where each entry si is an independent Bernoulli random variable with a specified probability of success p (e.g., 0.05 for 5%).
  • Construct the projection matrix S = ss^T.
• Subsampled Matrix Construction: Compute the matrix product Y = SX. This is equivalent to randomly keeping or discarding each row of X with probability p.
• Approximate Identifiability Calculation: Compute the Pearson correlations of Y to form matrix B. The approximate identifiability score Ī is then calculated as Ī = 1 - μ(B_off).
• Validation: Compare Ī to the original I across multiple trials (e.g., 1000 random subsamples) to assess preservation accuracy using metrics like RMSE.

Application Note: This procedure can be adapted for cross-correlations between different time snapshots (e.g., test-retest data) by applying the same random projection matrix S to both data matrices X1 and X2 [41].

Protocol 2: Qualitative and Quantitative fMRI QC Assessment

This combined protocol for assessing fMRI data quality synthesizes methodologies from multiple sources [63] [62].

Objective: To perform a comprehensive quality control assessment of fMRI data through a combination of quantitative metrics and qualitative visual inspection, identifying datasets that may be unusable due to artifacts or excessive motion.

Methodology:

• Quantitative Assessment:
  • Automated Metrics Calculation: Run an automated QC pipeline (e.g., the extended BOLD QC on CBSCentral) to generate key statistics [62].
  • Usability Check: Evaluate the calculated metrics against established thresholds (see Table 2). For example, flag data with Slice SNR < 99, Max Absolute Motion > 2mm, or Movements (>0.5mm) > 5 for further scrutiny [62].
  • Outlier Identification: Calculate average values for key parameters (e.g., motion, SNR) across all subjects in an experiment to identify outliers that deviate significantly from the group mean [62].
• Qualitative Assessment:
  • Visual Inspection: Use software like FSLeyes to visually inspect structural T1-weighted and functional EPI images [63] [62].
  • Artifact Identification: Scroll through all slices and views to check for:
    • Head Coverage: Ensure the entire brain is included and not clipped [62].
    • Ghosting: Look for a fainter, displaced copy of the head or brain [62].
    • RF Noise/Spiking: Identify TV static-like patterns or rigid stripes over the brain/background [62].
    • Signal Homogeneity: Assess whether the signal intensity pattern is symmetrical and normal for the scanner and coil [62].
    • Susceptibility Artifacts: Look for black areas of signal loss surrounded by bright/dark ripples [62].
• Integrated Decision: Combine findings from quantitative and qualitative assessments to make a final overall QC rating (e.g., "usable," "borderline," "unusable") [62].

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

Functional Connectome Fingerprinting and QC Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for processing fMRI data, conducting quality control, and performing functional connectome fingerprinting, as described in the experimental protocols.

Impact of Data Quality on Fingerprint Identifiability

This diagram outlines the logical relationship between data quality factors, their impacts on the functional connectome, and the ultimate effect on fingerprinting reliability.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

For researchers designing studies in functional connectome fingerprinting, the following tools and resources are critical for ensuring data quality and analytical robustness.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for FCF Studies

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Examples & Notes
High-Quality fMRI Database	Data	Provides standardized, often pre-processed, neuroimaging data for method development and validation.	Human Connectome Project (HCP) [38] [41], OpenNeuro [63], ABIDE, ABIDE-II [63].
Data Processing & Analysis Software	Software	Performs essential preprocessing, normalization, and statistical analysis of neuroimaging data.	AFNI [63], FSL [62], SPM, CONN, C-PAC.
Quality Control Pipelines	Software/Tool	Automates calculation of quantitative QC metrics (SNR, motion) and facilitates qualitative inspection.	CBSCentral Extended BOLD QC [62], in-house scripts for outlier detection.
Parcellation Atlas	Data/Software	Divides the brain into distinct regions of interest (ROIs) for constructing functional connectivity matrices.	Gordon333 Parcellation [63], AAL, Schaefer, Glasser.
Fingerprinting & ML Algorithms	Algorithm	Enables subject identification and connectivity pattern analysis from processed functional connectomes.	Custom scripts for Identifiability Score (ID) [41], Convolutional Autoencoders [38], Sparse Dictionary Learning [38].
Computational Resources	Infrastructure	Handles the intensive computation required for processing large datasets and complex models.	High-performance computing (HPC) clusters, cloud computing platforms.

The reliability of edges in functional connectome fingerprinting is fundamentally dependent on rigorous data quality control and an understanding of the trade-offs involving scan length and computational efficiency. Experimental data confirms that while shorter scans or aggressive data subsampling can reduce computational burden, they risk compromising the identifiability score that is central to reliable subject differentiation. Adherence to established quantitative QC metrics for motion and SNR, combined with systematic qualitative inspection, provides a non-negotiable foundation for ensuring that functional connectomes are fit for purpose. As the field advances towards personalized medicine applications, a meticulous approach to managing these factors will be crucial for developing robust, clinically viable brain fingerprints.

In the field of individual identification via functional connectivity (FC) fingerprints, the quest for robust and replicable brain-behavior associations is paramount [64]. A significant challenge in this domain is the high computational cost and storage requirements associated with processing large-scale neuroimaging data, which can hinder clinical translation and real-world utility [41] [65]. This guide objectively compares two principal computational strategies—Random Projection and various Sub-sampling methods—for enhancing efficiency while preserving the statistical power and biological fidelity of data analyses. Framed within connectomics research, we evaluate these approaches based on empirical evidence, focusing on their performance in maintaining identifiability, predictive accuracy, and clinical applicability.

Random Projection

Random Projection (RP) is a dimensionality reduction technique grounded in the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, which guarantees that pairwise distances between points are approximately preserved when projected onto a randomly selected lower-dimensional subspace [66]. This method is computationally efficient and particularly advantageous for handling high-dimensional data without strict linearity assumptions.

• Gaussian Random Projection (GRP): Utilizes a dense random matrix with entries drawn from a Gaussian distribution, which provides strong theoretical guarantees for distance preservation [66].
• Sparse Random Projection (SRP): Employs a sparse random matrix, significantly accelerating computations and reducing memory footprint, making it suitable for massive datasets [66].

Sub-sampling

Sub-sampling involves selecting a representative subset of data points to reduce computational burden. The key is to retain critical data structure and diversity while minimizing information loss.

• Uniform Sub-sampling: Randomly selects data points with equal probability. While simple and fast, it may inadequately capture rare populations or features [65] [67].
• Value-Based Sub-sampling (e.g., scValue): Uses a random forest model to assign a "data value" to each cell (or data point), prioritizing informative instances for selection. This approach enhances the preservation of biological diversity in downstream analyses [67].
• Partition and Shift Sub-sampling: Novel schemes designed to maximize diversity among training samples without reducing sample size, thereby improving predictive performance in ensemble methods [68].

Performance Comparison in Key Applications

The following tables summarize experimental data comparing the performance of Random Projection and Sub-sampling methods across various benchmarks, including clustering accuracy, identifiability score preservation, and computational efficiency.

Table 1: Comparative Performance in scRNA-seq Data Clustering (Labeled Datasets)

Method	Average Clustering Accuracy	Computational Speed	Within-Cluster Sum of Squares (WCSS)
Random Projection (RP)	Rivals or exceeds PCA	Fastest	Lower than PCA
PCA (Full SVD)	Benchmark	Slow	Higher than RP
Randomized SVD PCA	Slightly lower than RP	Moderate	Comparable to PCA

Data derived from benchmarking on single-cell RNA sequencing datasets, including Sorted PBMC and 50/50 Mixture datasets. Accuracy was measured using the Hungarian algorithm and Mutual Information [66].

Table 2: Performance in Functional Connectome Identifiability Preservation

Method	Edge Retention Rate	Identifiability Score (I) Preservation	Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Random Projection	5%	High accuracy	Within 2 decimal places
Uniform Sub-sampling	100% (baseline)	Baseline (I)	N/A
Full Data (No Compression)	100%	Baseline (I)	N/A

Application to brain network identifiability from fMRI data, using the Human Connectome Project 100 Unrelated subject dataset [41].

Table 3: Performance in Drug Target Interaction (DTI) Prediction

Method	auROC (Enzymes)	auROC (Ion Channel)	auROC (GPCRs)	auROC (Nuclear Receptors)
RP + NearMiss + Random Forest	99.33%	98.21%	97.65%	92.26%
State-of-the-art Comparisons	Lower than proposed	Lower than proposed	Lower than proposed	Lower than proposed

Results on gold standard datasets, demonstrating that RP-based dimensionality reduction combined with intelligent sub-sampling achieves superior predictive performance [69].

Table 4: Computational Time and Scalability

Method	Time Complexity	Scalability to Large Datasets	Memory Usage
Sparse Random Projection	O(nk)	Excellent	Low
Gaussian Random Projection	O(nk)	Good	Moderate
Full PCA (SVD)	O(min(mn², m²n))	Poor	High
Value-Based Sub-sampling (scValue)	O(n log n)	Excellent	Moderate

n = number of data points; k = target dimension [66] [67].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Dimensionality Reduction for Clustering

Objective: To evaluate the performance of RP against PCA in preserving data variability and clustering quality on scRNA-seq data [66].

• Data Preparation: Use publicly available scRNA-seq datasets (e.g., Sorted PBMC with 2,882 cells and 7,174 genes).
• Dimensionality Reduction: Apply both RP methods (SRP, GRP) and PCA methods (Full SVD, randomized SVD) to project data into a lower-dimensional space (e.g., 5 to 25 components).
• Downstream Clustering: Perform Hierarchical Clustering and Spherical K-Means on the reduced data.
• Evaluation:
  • For labeled datasets, compute clustering accuracy using the Hungarian algorithm and Mutual Information.
  • For unlabeled datasets, assess cluster separation using the Dunn Index and Gap Statistic.
  • Measure data variability preservation using Within-Cluster Sum of Squares (WCSS).

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for benchmarking dimensionality reduction methods in clustering.

Protocol 2: Preserving Brain Identifiability via Random Projection

Objective: To approximate the identifiability score (ID) of functional connectomes using only a random subset of functional edges [41].

• Data Loading: Obtain fMRI data from the Human Connectome Project with at least two scans per subject.
• Construct Identifiability Matrix: Compute the pairwise Pearson correlation of FCs across subjects to form matrix ( I ). Calculate the baseline ID score: ( ID = \mu(I{diag}) - \mu(I{off}) ), where ( \mu(I{diag}) ) is the average within-subject similarity and ( \mu(I{off}) ) is the average between-subject similarity.
• Random Projection: For a given retention probability ( p ), create a random binary projection vector ( s ), where each entry is 1 with probability ( p ). Construct a projected data matrix ( Y = S X ), where ( S = s s^T ).
• Compute Approximate ID: Calculate the correlation matrix ( B ) from ( Y ) and derive the approximate identifiability score ( \bar{I} = 1 - \mu(B_{off}) ).
• Validation: Compare ( \bar{I} ) to the baseline ID using root mean square error (RMSE) across multiple simulation trials.

Figure 2: Workflow for preserving brain identifiability using random projection.

Protocol 3: Value-Based Sub-sampling for Single-Cell Analysis

Objective: To generate informative sketches of large scRNA-seq datasets that preserve critical biological diversity for downstream machine learning tasks [67].

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize and log-transform count data. Select top highly variable genes and compute principal components (PCs).
• Data Valuation: Train a random forest classifier on the PC matrix to predict cell types. For each cell, compute its "data value" using out-of-bag (OOB) estimates, which reflect its importance in cell-type distinction.
• Sub-sample Selection: For each cell type, calculate a value-weighted target sketch size. Select cells with the highest data values within each type to form the final subsample.
• Downstream Analysis: Apply the subsample to tasks like automatic cell-type annotation, label transfer, or deconvolution, and compare performance against full-data results and other sub-sampling methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 5: Key Computational Tools and Resources

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
Random Projection (SRP/GRP)	Algorithm	Dimensionality reduction preserving pairwise distances	High-dimensional data compression [66]
scValue	Python Package	Value-based sub-sampling using random forest data valuation	scRNA-seq sketching for ML/DL [67]
Partition/Shift Sub-sampling	Algorithm	Enhances ensemble diversity without reducing sample size	Ensemble learning, predictive modeling [68]
Identifiability Score (ID)	Metric	Quantifies subject fingerprint in functional connectomes	Brain network analysis [41]
NearMiss	Algorithm	Controlled under-sampling to balance imbalanced datasets	Drug target interaction prediction [69]
Projection-Calibration	Method	Ensures estimator robustness in causal inference via subsampling	Large-scale causal inference [65]

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Empirical evidence demonstrates that both Random Projection and advanced Sub-sampling methods offer significant advantages for computational efficiency in biomedical research. RP excels in dimensionality reduction, rivaling or surpassing traditional PCA in clustering performance while being substantially faster [66]. It also effectively preserves critical metrics like brain identifiability scores even with substantial data reduction [41]. Meanwhile, value-based sub-sampling techniques like scValue ensure that computational gains do not come at the cost of biological insight, outperforming uniform methods in tasks like cell-type annotation [67].

The choice between these approaches depends on the specific research goal: RP is ideal for distance-preserving compression of high-dimensional data, while intelligent sub-sampling is superior for maintaining population heterogeneity and handling class imbalance. Their integration, as seen in drug target interaction prediction, can yield state-of-the-art results by leveraging the strengths of both [69]. For individual identification in functional connectivity research, these methods provide a viable path toward clinical utility by making large-scale analysis feasible without compromising the integrity of subject-level fingerprints [41] [64].

Enhancing Identifiability with Advanced Decomposition and Regularization Techniques

Functional connectivity (FC) fingerprinting has emerged as a transformative paradigm in neuroscience, enabling the identification of individuals based on their unique patterns of brain network organization [1]. The core premise rests on the substantiated finding that functional connectomes exhibit sufficient individuality to accurately distinguish participants from large cohorts, with initial studies demonstrating identification accuracies exceeding 90% using simple Pearson correlation-based FC [1]. This capability transcends brain states, remaining robust across resting-state and various task conditions, indicating that an individual's connectivity profile reflects an intrinsic, stable neural signature [1].

However, the initial success of conventional FC fingerprinting has revealed significant methodological challenges. Standard approaches often conflate shared information across individuals with individual-specific features, resulting in incomplete separation of these components and limiting both identification accuracy and behavioral prediction performance [70]. Furthermore, the high-dimensionality and inherent noise in fMRI data, coupled with the complex geometric structure of FC matrices—which reside on a Symmetric Positive Definite (SPD) manifold—demand specialized computational approaches to fully isolate discriminative neural features [71] [38].

Advanced decomposition and regularization techniques represent the vanguard of methodological innovation addressing these limitations. By systematically disentangling shared and individual-specific connectivity components, enforcing sparsity constraints, and respecting the underlying Riemannian geometry of FC data, these methods substantially enhance the precision, reliability, and practical utility of connectome fingerprints [70] [71] [38]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these advanced methodologies, detailing their experimental protocols, performance characteristics, and applications for researchers and drug development professionals working at the intersection of neuroimaging and personalized medicine.

Methodological Comparison of Advanced Techniques

Core Technical Approaches

Advanced methods for enhancing FC fingerprinting can be categorized into three principal paradigms: statistical decomposition, deep learning-based feature separation, and geometric regularization. Each addresses specific limitations of conventional FC analysis through distinct mechanistic approaches.

• Statistical Decomposition techniques, such as Sparse Partial Correlation with Elastic Net (SPC-EN), focus on estimating direct functional connections while circumventing the confounding influence of shared network effects. SPC-EN combines L1-norm (lasso) and L2-norm (ridge) regularization to overcome limitations of each approach used individually. The L1-norm promotes sparsity, yielding interpretable networks, while the L2-norm handles high correlations between brain regions and allows selection of more connections than the number of time points available—a common scenario in fMRI studies [72]. Stability selection methods are often deployed alongside to infer significant connections robustly, mitigating the challenge of parameter tuning [72].

• Deep Learning-Based Feature Separation frameworks employ architectures like Conditional Variational Autoencoders (CVAE) to explicitly separate shared and individual-specific connectivity patterns. These methods first learn a compressed representation of common connectivity features across subjects and tasks. The individual-specific signatures are then isolated in the residual connectomes, obtained by subtracting this shared reconstruction from the original FC matrix [70] [38]. A subsequent sparse dictionary learning (SDL) module can further decompose these residuals into compact, discriminative components for fingerprinting [38]. By embedding fMRI state information (e.g., rest vs. task) into the encoding process, these models better account for brain state variability while preserving individual identity [70].

• Geometric Regularization approaches address the fundamental mathematical structure of FC data. Standard covariance and correlation matrices are SPD, residing on a curved Riemannian manifold rather than in Euclidean space [71]. Methods like the Graph-Regulated Manifold-Aware Conditional Wasserstein GAN (GR-SPD-GAN) incorporate this geometry directly into the model. They use Riemannian metrics and operations (logarithmic and exponential maps between the manifold and its tangent space) to compute distances and generate data that respects the global network structure of real FC [71]. Population graph-based regularization further encourages the model to preserve inter-subject similarity relationships in the generated FC data, enhancing realism and stability [71].

Performance Benchmarking

The quantitative performance of these advanced methods demonstrates significant improvements over conventional approaches across multiple metrics, including identification accuracy, behavioral prediction, and clinical application value.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Fingerprinting Methods

Method	Dataset	Identification Accuracy (%)	Key Comparative Advantage
Pearson Correlation (Baseline) [1]	HCP (N=126)	~94% (Rest-Rest)	Established foundational fingerprinting capability
SPC-EN (Sparse Partial Correlation) [72]	Resting-state fMRI (N=22)	Modular architecture with strong inter-hemispheric links and hubs	Superior sensitivity and accuracy in high-correlation scenarios vs. L1-only
CVAE with SDL [70]	HCP (N=339)	99.7% (Rest1-Rest2)	Effectively separates shared and individual-specific features
GR-SPD-GAN (Geometric) [71]	Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)	Significant improvement in MDD classification accuracy with augmentation	Generates realistic synthetic FC data on the SPD manifold

Table 2: Network Contributions to Enhanced Fingerprinting

Brain Network	Contribution to Fingerprinting	Role in Behavioral Prediction
Frontoparietal (FPN)	Most distinctive network; high inter-individual variability [1] [29]	Predictive for higher-order cognition (fluid intelligence) [29]
Default Mode (DMN)	High discriminatory power, often co-active with FPN [29] [70]	Limited direct role in behavioral prediction models [29]
Medial Frontal	Strong contributor to individual discriminability [29]	Involved in predicting fluid intelligence and language [29]
Visual & Motor	Lower discriminatory power [29]	More relevant for sensory-motor behavior (e.g., grip strength) [29]

Beyond raw identification rates, the functional relevance of refined fingerprints is crucial. Studies systematically investigating the relationship between edges supporting identification and those predicting behavior find a notable dissociation [29]. While discriminatory edges primarily cluster within and between higher-order association networks like the FPN and DMN, predictive edges for various behaviors display a more variable distribution across the brain [29]. This suggests that enhanced fingerprinting does not merely amplify the same features that predict behavior but isolates a unique, stable neural signature of an individual.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol for Deep Learning-Based Decomposition

The integration of convolutional autoencoders with dictionary learning represents a state-of-the-art protocol for feature decomposition and fingerprinting enhancement [70] [38]. The following workflow details the critical steps for implementation:

• Data Preparation and Connectome Construction: Process fMRI BOLD time series from a large cohort (e.g., HCP data). Extract time series from a predefined brain atlas (e.g., Schaefer 100x7, Power264). Calculate primary FC matrices for each subject and session using a simple metric like Pearson correlation, resulting in a subject-specific set of connectivity matrices [38].

• Convolutional Autoencoder (CAE) Training: Train a CAE on the vectorized or appropriately formatted FC matrices from all subjects. The objective is for the CAE to learn a compressed latent representation that captures the shared, common connectivity patterns inherent across the population [70] [38].

• Residual Connectome Generation: For each subject's original FC matrix, pass it through the trained CAE to generate a reconstructed "shared" connectome. Subtract this reconstructed connectome from the original to obtain a residual connectome: Residual = Original_FC - Reconstructed_FC. These residuals are theorized to highlight individual-specific features by suppressing common variance [38].

• Sparse Dictionary Learning (SDL): Apply SDL to the entire set of residual connectomes. This decomposes the high-dimensional residuals into a dictionary of basis components and corresponding sparse coefficient vectors for each subject. The sparse coding isolates compact, interpretable patterns that maximize inter-subject differences [38].

• Fingerprinting and Identification: Use the sparse coefficient vectors (or the refined residual connectomes) as the feature set for subject identification. The similarity between feature vectors from different sessions (e.g., Rest1 and Rest2) is computed, typically using cosine similarity or correlation. The database subject with the highest similarity to the target is selected as the identity match [70] [38].

Protocol for Geometric Regularization on the SPD Manifold

For methods that treat FC matrices as non-Euclidean objects, the protocol involves specialized operations on the Riemannian manifold [71]:

• SPD Matrix Validation and Preparation: Ensure all input FC matrices (e.g., covariance matrices) are Symmetric Positive Definite. This may require post-processing, such as adding a small regularizer to the diagonal to ensure positive eigenvalues [71].

• Manifold-Aware Adversarial Training: Implement a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) with components designed for the SPD manifold. The generator maps random noise to synthetic SPD matrices. The discriminator is trained to distinguish real from generated SPD data. The key differentiator is the use of a manifold-aware Wasserstein distance, computed using Riemannian metrics (e.g., Affine-Invariant Riemannian Metric - AIRM), rather than standard Euclidean distances [71].

• Conditional Generation: Condition both the generator and discriminator on class labels (e.g., healthy control vs. disease group). This guides the generation process to produce FC matrices associated with specific populations, which is vital for targeted data augmentation [71].

• Graph Regularization: Construct a population graph where each node is a subject with their real FC matrix. The edges between nodes represent similarity, computed using the geodesic distance on the SPD manifold. Incorporate regularization terms in the GAN's loss function that enforce the generated data to preserve the local connectivity structure of this population graph. This prevents mode collapse and improves the quality and stability of generation [71].

• Data Augmentation for Downstream Tasks: Use the trained generator to synthesize high-quality, realistic FC matrices. Augment the original training dataset with these synthetic samples to improve the performance and generalizability of classifiers for brain disorders (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder identification) [71].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The experimental frameworks described rely on a suite of computational "reagents" – specific datasets, software tools, and theoretical constructs that are essential for replicating and advancing this research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Advanced FC Fingerprinting

Research Reagent	Type	Function in the Experimental Pipeline
Human Connectome Project (HCP) Datasets [1] [38]	Data	Provides high-quality, multi-modal neuroimaging data from healthy young adults, essential for training and benchmarking fingerprinting models.
SPC-EN Algorithm [72]	Software/Method	Estimates sparse partial correlations for direct connectivity mapping, overcoming limitations of full correlation.
Conditional Variational Autoencoder (CVAE) [70]	Software/Architecture	A deep learning model that learns to separate shared and individual-specific features in FC data, conditioned on brain state.
Sparse Dictionary Learning (SDL) [38]	Software/Method	Decomposes residual connectomes into interpretable, discriminative components for robust identification.
Affine-Invariant Riemannian Metric (AIRM) [71]	Theoretical Construct	The fundamental metric for computing distances and statistics on the SPD manifold, ensuring geometric validity.
Graph-Regularized SPD-GAN [71]	Software/Architecture	A generative model for creating realistic synthetic FC data on the SPD manifold, used for data augmentation.
Schaefer 100x7 / Power264 Atlases [4] [38]	Tool/Resource	Standardized brain parcellation schemes used to define network nodes for consistent ROI-to-ROI connectivity analysis.

The methodological evolution from simple correlation-based FC to advanced decomposition and geometric regularization represents a significant leap forward in the precision and applicability of connectome fingerprinting. Techniques that explicitly separate shared and individual-specific features, such as CVAE with SDL, have pushed identification accuracy to near-perfect levels on large datasets [70] [38]. Simultaneously, approaches that respect the intrinsic Riemannian geometry of FC data, like GR-SPD-GAN, unlock new possibilities for generating high-fidelity synthetic connectomes and augmenting clinical datasets [71].

A critical insight from comparative analyses is that the neural features supporting maximal identifiability are distinct from those that best predict behavior [29]. This dissociation underscores the importance of tailoring the methodological choice to the specific research goal: maximizing identifiability versus building predictive models for cognitive traits or clinical outcomes.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these advanced techniques offer a more powerful and nuanced toolkit. They enable not only more reliable subject tracking across studies and time but also the potential to generate synthetic control data and identify more sensitive, individual-specific biomarkers of neurological and psychiatric diseases. As the field moves forward, the integration of these sophisticated decomposition, regularization, and geometric modeling approaches will be paramount in translating the promise of functional connectome fingerprinting into tangible clinical and research applications.

Selecting Optimal Functional Parcellations and Network Definitions

The human brain is fundamentally characterized by pronounced inter-individual variability in both morphology and functional organization [73]. In the context of individual identification research, which seeks to identify unique functional connectivity fingerprints, the initial step of brain parcellation—dividing the brain into distinct functional regions or networks—is paramount. This choice establishes the fundamental nodes for all subsequent network analyses, directly influencing the sensitivity and accuracy of individual differentiation [73] [4]. Relying on a one-size-fits-all group-level atlas can obscure the very individual-specific features that fingerprinting research aims to uncover [74]. Consequently, selecting an optimal parcellation approach is not merely a technical pre-processing step but a core methodological decision that can determine the success or failure of individual identification studies. This guide provides a comparative analysis of parcellation schemes and network definition methods, equipping researchers with the data needed to select the optimal tools for mapping the individual brain.

Comparative Analysis of Parcellation Approaches

Brain parcellation methodologies can be broadly categorized based on their target scale (group versus individual) and their underlying algorithmic principles. The following table summarizes the primary approaches.

Table 1: Comparison of Functional Brain Parcellation Approaches

Parcellation Approach	Core Methodology	Key Advantages	Inherent Limitations	Suitability for Individual Fingerprinting
Group-Level Atlas [73]	Averages data across subjects to define a single, consensus map (e.g., Yeo et al., 2011; Schaefer et al., 2018).	High stability and reproducibility; provides a common coordinate system; vast literature for comparison.	Obscures individual topographic variation; imposes homogeneous network boundaries; lower sensitivity to individual differences.	Low to Moderate. Useful as an initial exploratory tool but suboptimal for capturing individual fingerprints.
Optimization-Based Individual [73] [74]	Derives unique parcellations per subject using clustering, graph partitioning, or gradient-based algorithms on individual data.	Directly captures individual-specific network topography; high sensitivity to individual differences.	Computationally intensive; requires high-quality data; results can be less stable without strong regularization.	High. Directly designed to reveal individual-specific functional organization.
Learning-Based Individual [73]	Employs deep or machine learning models trained to predict individual parcellations from brain data.	Potential for high speed once trained; can leverage large datasets to learn complex patterns.	Requires extensive training data; model generalizability can be a concern; "black box" nature may reduce interpretability.	High. Promising for large-scale studies, but requires careful validation.
Exemplar-Based Individual [74]	Uses submodular optimization to select representative "exemplar" regions, establishing a unified correspondence across subjects.	Provides a flexible one-to-one mapping of networks across individuals, easing comparison.	Complex implementation; relatively newer method with less established toolkits.	Very High. Uniquely balances individual specificity with cross-subject comparability.

Defining Functional Networks: A Benchmark of Pairwise Statistics

Once nodes are defined via parcellation, the next critical choice is the method for estimating the functional connections (edges) between them. While Pearson's correlation is the ubiquitous default, a comprehensive benchmark study evaluated 239 pairwise statistics across multiple criteria critical to individual identification research [4]. The following table summarizes the performance of key statistic families.

Table 2: Benchmarking Functional Connectivity (FC) Estimation Methods for Individual Identification [4]

Family of Pairwise Statistics	Representative Measures	Structure-Function Coupling (R²)	Individual Fingerprinting Accuracy	Brain-Behavior Prediction	Key Characteristics
Covariance	Pearson's Correlation	~0.15	Moderate	Moderate	The default method; captures full linear correlation.
Precision	Partial Correlation	~0.25	High	High	Models direct relationships by removing common network influences.
Distance	Euclidean, Manhattan	<0.05	Low to Moderate	Low	Measures dissimilarity; often anticorrelated with covariance.
Information Theoretic	Mutual Information	~0.10	Moderate	Moderate	Can capture non-linear dependencies.
Spectral	Coherence, Imaginary Coherence	~0.15 (Imaginary)	Moderate	Moderate	Focuses on synchrony in specific frequency bands.
Stochastic Interaction	---	~0.25	High	High	Models dynamic influences; high computational cost.

The benchmark data reveals that precision-based statistics (e.g., partial correlation) consistently outperform other families, demonstrating superior structure–function coupling, high individual fingerprinting accuracy, and strong predictive power for behavior [4]. This suggests that moving beyond simple correlation to methods that estimate direct relationships can significantly enhance the sensitivity of individual identification studies.

Experimental Protocols for Individual-Level Parcellation

Exemplar-Based Individual Parcellation Protocol

This protocol, derived from a study introducing a submodular optimization framework, is designed to maximize sensitivity to individual variations [74].

• Step 1: Data Acquisition and Preprocessing. Acquire high-temporal-signal-to-noise-ratio (tSNR) resting-state fMRI data. Preprocess using standard pipelines (e.g., in AFNI or FSL), including slice-timing correction, motion realignment, nuisance regression (for white matter, CSF, and motion parameters), band-pass filtering, and normalization to a standard space [75] [74].
• Step 2: Node Definition. Define a fine-grained, gray-matter mask. This can be a high-resolution volumetric grid or vertices on a cortical surface.
• Step 3: Feature Extraction. For each node, compute its whole-brain functional connectivity profile, typically a vector of temporal correlations with every other node.
• Step 4: Exemplar Selection via Submodular Optimization. The core of the method is to select K exemplar nodes that best represent the entire brain. This is framed as maximizing a submodular set function. A greedy algorithm is used to efficiently find a near-optimal set of exemplars. Each exemplar will become the center of a functional network.
• Step 5: Network Assignment. Assign every node in the brain to its most similar exemplar, based on the correlation between their connectivity profiles, resulting in a individualized whole-brain parcellation.
• Step 6: Cross-Validation. Validate the stability of the parcellation using internal metrics like split-half reliability or the stability of network assignments across multiple runs [73] [74].

Protocol for Benchmarking Functional Connectivity Metrics

This protocol outlines how to compare different pairwise statistics for fingerprinting, based on a large-scale benchmarking study [4].

• Step 1: Dataset Curation. Use a dataset with a large number of participants (N > 300 is ideal) and multiple resting-state fMRI sessions per subject (e.g., the Human Connectome Project). This is essential for robust fingerprinting analysis.
• Step 2: Parcellation Application. Map a predefined brain atlas (e.g., Schaefer 100x7) to each subject's functional data to extract average time series for each region.
• Step 3: FC Matrix Computation. Calculate a functional connectivity matrix for each subject and session using a diverse library of pairwise statistics. The pyspi package can be used to compute a wide array of these statistics efficiently [4].
• Step 4: Fingerprinting Analysis. For each pairwise statistic, calculate the similarity between every pair of FC matrices from the same subject (across different sessions) and between different subjects. A successful fingerprint is one where within-subject similarity is consistently and significantly higher than between-subject similarity.
• Step 5: Statistical Evaluation. Quantify fingerprinting accuracy using a metric like the Differential Identifiability (I_diff) score. Pairwise statistics with higher I_diff are more powerful for individual identification [4].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key steps for creating and validating an individual-specific functional connectome for identification purposes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 3: Key Software and Analytical Tools for Functional Parcellation and Connectivity Research

Tool Name	Primary Function	Application in This Context	Language/Platform
AFNI [75] [76]	fMRI Data Analysis & Preprocessing	Used for volume registration, despiking, and nuisance regression in experimental protocols.	C / Unix
FreeSurfer [75] [76]	Cortical Surface Reconstruction	Creates individual-specific surface models and masks for high-quality parcellation.	C++ / Cross-platform
FSL [76] [4]	fMRI & Diffusion MRI Analysis	Offers alternative preprocessing pipelines (FEAT) and tissue segmentation tools.	C++ / Cross-platform
SPM [77] [78]	Statistical Parametric Mapping	A widely used alternative for image preprocessing, normalization, and statistical modeling.	MATLAB
PySPI [4]	Pairwise Statistics Computation	The core library for benchmarking 239 FC metrics as described in the benchmark study.	Python
NiMARE [78]	Neuroimaging Meta-Analysis	Useful for validating derived networks against large-scale meta-analytic databases like Neurosynth.	Python
3D Slicer [76]	Visualization & Manual Segmentation	Aids in the visual inspection and validation of individual parcellation results.	C++ / Cross-platform
GingerALE [78]	Coordinate-Based Meta-Analysis	Used for comparing results from task-based studies with resting-state network maps.	Java / Cross-platform

Selecting optimal functional parcellations and network definitions is a foundational step for advancing the science of individual identification through functional connectivity fingerprints. The evidence indicates that individual-specific parcellation approaches, particularly those using exemplar-based or optimization-based methods, are superior to rigid group-level atlases for capturing individual differences [73] [74]. Furthermore, the choice of pairwise statistic for defining edges is equally critical, with precision-based methods (e.g., partial correlation) demonstrating top performance in fingerprinting accuracy and behavioral prediction [4].

Future progress in this field will likely be driven by integrated learning-based frameworks that jointly optimize node and edge definition, and by the fusion of multimodal data (e.g., combining rsfMRI with dMRI and tfMRI) to create more biologically grounded and individually precise brain maps [73]. As these tools evolve, they will solidify the role of functional connectivity fingerprinting as a powerful paradigm in basic neuroscience and personalized clinical applications.

Benchmarking and Validation: Assessing Robustness and Functional Relevance

In the field of computational neuroscience, the concept of the functional connectome—a network representation of statistical dependencies between brain regions—has revolutionized our understanding of individual brain organization. Research has established that this functional connectivity (FC) profile acts as a unique "fingerprint" that can accurately identify individuals from a large group [1]. The validation of these fingerprints relies on specific metrics that quantify their discriminative power and reliability. Identifiability score and matching rate have emerged as two fundamental metrics for assessing the quality of FC fingerprints in test-retest settings [79]. These metrics provide the statistical foundation for determining whether functional connectomes contain sufficiently stable and unique information to distinguish individuals, with potential applications in personalized medicine and neurological disorder diagnosis [79] [1].

The importance of robust validation metrics extends beyond mere identification accuracy. They provide the necessary framework for transitioning from population-level neuroimaging studies to investigations at the single-subject level, enabling researchers to draw inferences about individuals based on their unique functional brain organization [1]. Furthermore, as demonstrated by Finn et al. (2015), the same networks that were most discriminating of individuals were also most predictive of cognitive behavior, establishing the behavioral relevance of these connectivity fingerprints [1].

Metric Definitions and Theoretical Foundations

Identifiability Score

The identifiability score, specifically referred to as differential identifiability in the framework developed by Amico and Goñi (2018), quantifies how well an individual's functional connectivity profile can be distinguished from others in a population [79]. Mathematically, it measures the ratio between within-subject similarity and between-subject similarity across scanning sessions. A higher differential identifiability indicates that the functional connectomes of the same individual across different sessions are more similar to each other than to those of other individuals, thus reflecting a stronger fingerprint [79]. This metric is particularly valuable because it captures both the reliability of an individual's connectome across time and its distinctiveness from others in the cohort.

Matching Rate

The matching rate (also called identification rate) represents the percentage of correct identifications achieved when matching a subject's functional connectivity profile from one session to their profile in another session within a database [79] [1]. This metric operates on a binary outcome—either the identification is correct or incorrect—and provides an intuitive measure of practical identification performance. In the foundational fingerprinting study by Finn et al., the matching rate reached 94.4% when using whole-brain connectivity matrices between rest sessions [1]. Recent research has introduced variants of this metric to provide more robust depictions of individual fingerprints embedded in FCs [79].

Relationship Between Metrics

While both metrics evaluate fingerprint quality, they offer complementary perspectives. The identifiability score provides a continuous measure of overall system discriminability, whereas the matching rate reflects practical identification performance. Studies have shown that improvements in differential identifiability through techniques like degree-normalization systematically enhance matching rates, confirming their conceptual alignment [79].

Table 1: Core Definitions of Fingerprint Validation Metrics

Metric	Definition	Measurement Approach	Key Reference
Identifiability Score	Quantifies the ratio of within-subject similarity to between-subject similarity across sessions	Differential identifiability framework	Amico & Goñi (2018) [79]
Matching Rate	Percentage of correct subject identifications across scanning sessions	Binary classification of successful matches between target and database sessions	Finn et al. (2015) [1]

Experimental Protocols for Metric Validation

Core Fingerprinting Methodology

The standard experimental protocol for validating functional connectivity fingerprints involves a multi-stage process using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. The fundamental workflow begins with data acquisition, typically using the Human Connectome Project dataset which includes resting-state and task fMRI sessions from multiple subjects across different days [1]. Each subject undergoes multiple scanning sessions with various conditions (resting-state and tasks like working memory, emotion processing, gambling, language, motor, relational processing, and social cognition) [79].

Following acquisition, preprocessing is applied to the blood-oxygenation-level dependent (BOLD) signals, including regression of global gray matter signals, bandpass filtering, and z-scoring of time courses [79]. The preprocessed data then undergoes functional connectivity matrix construction by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients between the timecourses of each possible pair of brain regions defined by a brain atlas (such as the 374-region multimodal parcellation) [79]. This produces symmetrical connectivity matrices where each element represents connection strength between two nodes.

The identification procedure follows a specific protocol where one session serves as the "target" and another as the "database," with the requirement that target and database sessions be from different days [1]. In an iterative process, one individual's connectivity matrix is selected from the target set and compared against each matrix in the database to find the maximally similar match using Pearson correlation between edge values [1]. This yields both the matching rate (percentage of correct identifications) and, through further analysis, the differential identifiability score.

Enhanced Protocol with Degree-Normalization

Recent methodological advances have incorporated degree-normalization as an additional processing step that systematically improves fingerprinting metrics [79]. This mathematical operation reduces the excessive influence of strongly connected brain areas (hubs) in the whole-brain network by utilizing information encoded in the weighted degree sequence [79]. The implementation involves computing the weighted degree (strength) of each node—the sum of weights of its neighboring edges—and using this vector to normalize edge weights, thereby comparatively increasing the influence of weaker connections [79].

Studies applying this enhanced protocol have demonstrated that degree-normalization improves all three fingerprinting metrics (differential identifiability, identification rate, and matching rate) across both resting-state and task conditions [79]. Furthermore, the results suggest that reconstructing optimally identifiable functional connectomes after degree-normalization requires fewer principal components, indicating that individual fingerprints are embedded in a low-dimensional space [79].

Comparative Performance Data

Quantitative Metric Performance Across Conditions

Empirical studies have quantified the performance of both identifiability scores and matching rates across various experimental conditions. The frontoparietal network consistently emerges as the most distinctive network for individual identification, with frontoparietal-based identification reaching 98-99% matching rates between rest sessions [1]. Performance remains highly significant (80-90%) even between rest and task conditions, indicating that an individual's connectivity profile is intrinsic and can be distinguished regardless of brain state during imaging [1].

Table 2: Performance of Fingerprinting Metrics Across Experimental Conditions

Experimental Condition	Brain Parcellation	Matching Rate	Identifiability Score	Reference
Rest1-to-Rest2 (Whole Brain)	268-node atlas	94.4%	Not reported	Finn et al. (2015) [1]
Rest1-to-Rest2 (Frontoparietal)	268-node atlas	99%	Not reported	Finn et al. (2015) [1]
With Degree-Normalization	374-region parcellation	Systematic improvement	Systematic improvement	Sperti et al. (2022) [79]
Task-to-Rest Conditions	268-node atlas	80-90%	Not reported	Finn et al. (2015) [1]
Neonatal Structural Connectome	dHCP parcellation	62%	Not reported	O'Muircheartaigh et al. (2022) [80]

Impact of Analytical Variables

Multiple factors influence metric performance, with scan duration and network selection being particularly significant. Research has shown that using shorter timecourses substantially affects identification power, with resting-state sessions containing 1,200 time points substantially outperforming task sessions with fewer time points (e.g., 176 for emotion tasks) [1]. The frontoparietal network (a combination of medial frontal and frontoparietal networks) significantly outperforms either network individually as well as whole-brain connectivity across all database-to-target pairs [1].

Edgewise analysis has revealed that connections with high differential power (ability to distinguish individuals) are predominantly located in frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, particularly involving the frontoparietal and default mode networks [1]. Approximately 28% of high-DP edges were within and between the two frontoparietal networks, while another 48% linked these networks to other brain systems [1].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Methods

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Connectivity Fingerprinting

Resource Category	Specific Implementation	Function/Purpose	Key Characteristics
Neuroimaging Dataset	Human Connectome Project (HCP) 1200-participants release	Provides high-quality fMRI data for method development and validation	Includes unrelated individuals to avoid familial confounding effects [79] [1]
Brain Atlas	MMP1.0 multimodal parcellation with subcortical regions	Standardized brain parcellation for node definition	180 cortical regions per hemisphere + 14 subcortical regions = 374 total ROIs [79]
Preprocessing Tools	Workbench software, Scipy package	Signal processing and artifact removal	Bandpass filtering (0.001-0.08 Hz for rest, 0.001-0.25 Hz for tasks) [79]
Computational Framework	Differential identifiability framework	PCA-based decomposition-reconstruction of FCs	Enables extraction of optimally identifiable connectivity components [79]
Normalization Method	Degree-normalization algorithm	Reduces hub dominance in networks	Balances influence of strongly and weakly connected brain areas [79]

The validation metrics of identifiability score and matching rate provide the fundamental statistical framework for assessing functional connectivity fingerprints in individual identification. While the identifiability score (differential identifiability) quantifies the overall discriminative power of connectivity profiles, the matching rate measures practical identification performance across sessions. The experimental protocols for calculating these metrics involve standardized processing of fMRI data, construction of functional connectivity matrices, and cross-session matching procedures.

Recent methodological advances, particularly the introduction of degree-normalization, have systematically improved both metrics by reducing the excessive influence of strongly connected hub regions and enhancing the contribution of weakly connected subnetworks [79]. The frontoparietal network consistently emerges as the most distinctive for individual identification, with matching rates reaching 99% between rest sessions [1]. These metrics and methodologies establish the foundation for a shift from population-level neuroscience to individual-based scientific investigation and clinical examination, with potential applications in personalized diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders [79] [1].

Functional connectivity (FC) fingerprinting has emerged as a powerful approach for mapping and understanding the unique patterns of brain connectivity that characterize individuals [38]. The concept, firmly established by Finn et al. (2015), demonstrates that functional connectivity patterns are unique to individuals and can serve as reliable fingerprints, allowing accurate identification of subjects across multiple scanning sessions [38] [81]. The robustness of these neural fingerprints—their ability to remain stable and identifiable across different sessions, conditions, and time—is paramount for their translational application in personalized medicine, clinical diagnostics, and cognitive neuroscience [38] [40].

The pursuit of robustness is not merely a technical challenge but a fundamental requirement for the real-world deployment of brain fingerprinting technologies. In clinical neuroscience, robust fingerprints could facilitate personalized treatment strategies for conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, autism, and schizophrenia, while enhancing our understanding of how brain networks influence mental health [38]. Similarly, reliable identification across sessions is crucial for monitoring disease progression or treatment effects in individual patients [40]. However, achieving this robustness faces significant hurdles from multiple sources of biological and technical variability, including fluctuations in brain states, instrumental noise, and changes in experimental conditions [82].

This guide systematically compares the performance of various methodological approaches for establishing robust functional connectivity fingerprints across three critical dimensions: cross-session, cross-condition, and multi-year stability. By synthesizing experimental data from recent studies and providing detailed protocols, we aim to equip researchers with the necessary tools to evaluate and enhance the robustness of brain fingerprinting in their own work.

Comparative Performance of Fingerprinting Approaches

Quantitative Comparison of Cross-Session Stability

Table 1: Cross-Session Stability Performance of Various Neuroimaging Paradigms

Modality	Paradigm/Task	Inter-Session Interval	Identification Accuracy	Key Stability Findings	Reference
fMRI	Landmark Task	5-8 days	>62% (LI >0.4); >93% (left/right categories)	"Fair" to "good" reliability of lateralization strength; poor single-voxel reliability	[83]
EEG	Motor Imagery (Within-Session)	Single session	68.8% (average)	Significant difference from chance level (P < 0.001)	[82]
EEG	Motor Imagery (Cross-Session)	2-3 days	53.7% (average)	No significant difference from chance level (P > 0.05); substantial performance drop	[82]
EEG	Motor Imagery (Cross-Session with Adaptation)	2-3 days	78.9% (average)	Significant improvement with adaptation techniques (P < 0.001)	[82]
Spinal Cord fMRI	Resting State (Within-Session)	Single session	Demonstrated session-specific identification	First evidence of "spine-print" existence; technical validation	[81]

Cross-Condition and Multi-Modal Robustness

Table 2: Cross-Condition and Multi-Modal Fingerprinting Performance

Modality/Approach	Conditions/Modalities Combined	Identification Performance	Most Discriminative Features	Reference
fMRI Functional Connectome	Working memory, motor, language, emotion tasks	10% improvement over baseline FC models	Subject-specific patterns in residual connectomes	[38]
Structural-Functional Integration	Glioma patients vs. pseudo-healthy references	Effective abnormality detection	Functional connectivity in structurally intact regions	[40]
Deep Learning (3D CNN) vs. Standard ML	Gray matter volume maps	58.22% vs. 51.15% (10-class classification)	DL representations more discriminative than hand-engineered features	[84]
Convolutional Autoencoder + Dictionary Learning	Resting-state and task-based conditions	Improved identifiability across conditions	Isolated subject-specific patterns from shared structures	[38]

Experimental Protocols for Robustness Assessment

Protocol for Cross-Session fMRI Reliability Testing

The Landmark task protocol provides a validated approach for assessing cross-session reliability in fMRI paradigms targeting visuospatial processing [83].

Participant Selection and Preparation:

• Recruit right-handed, healthy participants with normal or corrected-to-normal vision
• Exclude individuals with history of medical, neurological, or psychiatric illnesses
• Obtain informed consent and ethical approval following Declaration of Helsinki guidelines
• Conduct practice sessions outside the scanner to ensure task understanding

Experimental Design:

• Implement the Landmark task using presentation software (e.g., Presentation Software Package, Version 14.1)
• Utilize a block design with alternating task and rest periods
• Collect responses via MR-compatible response boxes placed on left and right thighs
• The task involves spatial judgments on bisected lines, engaging dorsal attention network

Data Acquisition Parameters:

• Acquire data using 3T MRI scanners with standard fMRI sequences
• Collect whole-brain coverage with multiband EPI sequences for improved temporal resolution
• Maintain consistent positioning across sessions using anatomical landmarks
• Include field mapping for distortion correction

Analysis Pipeline:

• Preprocess data including motion correction, slice timing correction, normalization
• Compute lateralization indices (LI) with threshold of |LI| > 0.4 for significance
• Assess test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)
• Perform single-subject analyses to evaluate individual-level reliability

Protocol for Cross-Session EEG Motor Imagery Adaptation

This protocol addresses the significant performance degradation in cross-session EEG classification through domain adaptation techniques [82].

Experimental Setup:

• Recruit 25+ healthy subjects without prior BCI experience
• Use 32-channel EEG caps according to standard 10-10 system
• Maintain electrode impedance below 20 kΩ throughout recording
• Position subjects 1 meter from visual display in controlled environment

Motor Imagery Paradigm:

• Implement cue-based left-hand and right-hand motor imagery tasks
• Each trial: 7.5s duration with fixation cross, cue presentation, and imagery period
• Collect 100 trials per session across 5 sessions (2-3 days apart)
• Include adequate rest periods to maintain participant alertness

Data Preprocessing:

• Remove bad segments with amplitudes exceeding 100μV
• Apply 0.5-40 Hz band-pass FIR filter
• Extract 4s epochs time-locked to motor imagery onset
• Format data according to EEG-BIDS standards for reproducibility

Cross-Session Adaptation Implementation:

• Apply unsupervised domain adaptation methods (e.g., I3Net)
• Use source session data for initial model training
• Adapt model parameters using limited target session data
• Validate using within-session, cross-session, and cross-session adaptation conditions
• Benchmark with CSP, FBCSP, EEGNet, and Deep ConvNet algorithms

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

Cross-Session Reliability Assessment Pipeline

Domain Adaptation for Cross-Session Stability

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Resources for Connectivity Fingerprinting Research

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Platform	Application in Robustness Testing	Key Features
Data Acquisition	3T MRI Scanner with Multiband EPI	fMRI data collection for connectivity studies	High spatial resolution, whole-brain coverage, minimized acquisition time
Data Acquisition	32-channel EEG System with 10-10 placement	High-density electrophysiological recording	High temporal resolution, standardized positioning, low impedance requirements
Experimental Control	Presentation Software Package	Precise stimulus delivery and response collection	Millisecond timing accuracy, MRI compatibility, flexible paradigm design
Data Standards	EEG-BIDS (Brain Imaging Data Structure)	Standardized data organization and sharing	FAIR principles implementation, reproducibility, interoperability
Computational Tools	Convolutional Autoencoders + Dictionary Learning	Feature extraction and identifiability enhancement	Isolates subject-specific patterns from shared connectivity structures [38]
Computational Tools	I3Net (Implicit Instance-Invariant Network)	Unsupervised domain adaptation	Improved cross-session generalization without target labels [82]
Analysis Platforms	FSL, SPM, AFNI, EEGLAB	Data preprocessing and general analysis	Comprehensive processing pipelines, community support, validation
Reference Datasets	Human Connectome Project (HCP)	Method validation and benchmarking	Large sample size, multiple modalities, standardized acquisition [38]
Reference Datasets	OpenNeuro	Public data sharing and algorithm testing	Diverse tasks, multiple sessions, open access [81]

The comprehensive comparison presented in this guide demonstrates that while significant progress has been made in establishing robust functional connectivity fingerprints across sessions and conditions, substantial challenges remain. The fundamental trade-off between biological variability and technical identifiability emerges as a central theme, with adaptation strategies showing particular promise for bridging this gap.

Future research directions should focus on several key areas. First, developing integrated models that combine structural, functional, and microstructural connectivity information may enhance robustness, as preliminary evidence suggests that functional connectivity often reveals alterations in structurally intact regions [40]. Second, the extension of fingerprinting principles to beyond-brain structures, such as the spinal cord ("spine-prints"), presents both technical challenges and opportunities for comprehensive nervous system profiling [81]. Finally, standardized robustness assessment protocols, similar to those used in pharmaceutical formulation development [85], would facilitate direct comparison across studies and accelerate clinical translation.

As the field progresses, the integration of deep learning approaches with multi-modal, multi-session data holds particular promise for unlocking the full potential of functional connectome fingerprinting in both basic neuroscience and clinical applications.

In the field of modern neuroscience, functional connectivity (FC)—the statistical relationships between neural signals from distinct brain regions—has emerged as a foundational metric for exploring brain organization and individual differences. Research has bifurcated into two primary application domains: individual identification, which leverages the unique, stable "fingerprint" of a person's connectome to distinguish them from others, and behavioral prediction, which uses connectome patterns to forecast cognitive performance, clinical outcomes, or other real-world behaviors [38]. While both domains utilize similar initial data, typically derived from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), they diverge critically in their methodological approaches, underlying neural features, and ultimate objectives. This guide provides a structured comparison of the experimental protocols, data requirements, and reagent solutions that define and separate these two burgeoning research paths.

The distinction is not merely academic; it has profound implications for the development of biomarkers and personalized medicine. Identification methodologies prioritize features that are highly unique and stable within an individual over time, even across different cognitive states [38]. In contrast, behavioral prediction models seek out connectivity patterns that are shared across individuals and correlate strongly with specific cognitive traits or clinical symptoms [6]. This fundamental difference in target dictates every subsequent choice in the research pipeline, from data preprocessing to final analytical model.

Comparative Analysis: Experimental Data & Performance

The following tables summarize the core quantitative findings and data requirements that highlight the divergence between identification and behavioral prediction studies.

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics of Identification vs. Prediction Studies

Study Objective	Core Methodology	Dataset	Performance Outcome
Individual Identification	Convolutional Autoencoder + Sparse Dictionary Learning [38]	HCP (n=339)	~10% improvement over baseline FC models [38]
Individual Identification	Brain Natural Frequencies (MEG) [86]	OMEGA (n=128)	High accuracy within and between sessions (up to 4+ years) [86]
Behavioral Prediction	Connectome-Based Predictive Modeling [6]	Local Cohort (n=194)	Significantly predicted global and domain-specific exam scores [6]
Behavioral Prediction	Connectome-Based Predictive Modeling [6]	Local Cohort (n=194)	Predictions consistent across four different analytical approaches [6]

Table 2: Data Acquisition and Feature Comparison

Aspect	Identification-Focused Research	Behavioral Prediction-Focused Research
Primary Data Type	Resting-state fMRI [38], MEG [86]	Resting-state fMRI [6]
Key Neural Features	Individual-specific residual connectomes, natural oscillatory frequencies [38] [86]	Connectivity patterns correlated with a specific behavioral trait (e.g., quantitative reasoning) [6]
Critical Feature Trait	High inter-subject variability [38]	High correlation with the target behavior [6]
Sample Size Consideration	Effective even with large datasets (n=339) [38]	Robust predictions achieved with smaller cohorts (n=194) [6]
Temporal Stability	A critical requirement; tested over years [86] [38]	Less critical; focus is on cross-sectional correlation

Experimental Protocols: A Detailed Workflow Comparison

Protocol for Functional Connectome Fingerprinting (Identification)

The goal of this protocol is to extract a neural signature that is highly unique to an individual and stable across time and task conditions [38].

• Data Acquisition & Preprocessing: Collect resting-state fMRI data using a standardized acquisition protocol. For the HCP dataset, this involves a customized Siemens 3T scanner with a multiband EPI sequence to optimize quality and minimize head movement [38]. Preprocessing typically includes motion correction, band-pass filtering, and denoising to remove physiological artifacts.
• Connectome Construction: Extract time series from predefined brain parcellations (e.g., the Schaefer atlas). Calculate the functional connectivity matrix for each subject using Pearson's correlation between the time series of all region pairs.
• Feature Refinement for Identification: This is the critical divergence point. To isolate identification-specific features, a convolutional autoencoder is trained on the group's connectomes to learn shared, task-driven connectivity structures. The key step is subtracting this reconstructed "common" connectome from the subject's original connectome, resulting in a residual connectome that highlights individual-specific features [38].
• Sparse Dictionary Learning: Apply sparse dictionary learning to the residual connectomes. This decomposes them into compact, interpretable components that further isolate subject-specific patterns from any remaining shared structures [38].
• Identification & Validation: The refined connectome features are used for subject matching. The model is tested by attempting to identify the same subject across different scanning sessions or task conditions (e.g., rest vs. a working memory task). Performance is measured by identification accuracy.

Protocol for Behavioral Prediction

The goal of this protocol is to build a model that can predict a continuous behavioral or cognitive score from an individual's functional connectome [6].

• Data Acquisition & Preprocessing: This initial stage is often identical to the identification protocol, using resting-state fMRI data.
• Connectome Construction: Similarly, a functional connectivity matrix is created for each subject.
• Feature Selection for Behavior: This is the core divergent step. Instead of seeking unique features, the model identifies connections whose strength is consistently correlated with the target behavior across individuals. For example, to predict academic performance, the model will select edges that correlate with scores on a standardized test [6].
• Model Training and Validation: The strength of the behaviorally-relevant connections is used as input features in a regression model (e.g., linear or ridge regression) to predict the behavioral score. The model is trained on one subset of the data and validated on a held-out test set. Performance is measured by the significance of the correlation between predicted and actual scores [6].
• Transfer Learning (Optional): In some advanced pipelines, predicted domain-specific scores (e.g., quantitative and verbal reasoning) can be used as features to predict a global score, which has been shown to improve prediction accuracy compared to a direct model [6].

Workflow Visualization

The diagram below illustrates the divergent pathways taken by identification versus prediction research from the same initial data.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Resources for Functional Connectivity Research

Reagent/Resource	Function in Research	Exemplars & Notes
Neuroimaging Datasets	Provide standardized, high-quality data for model development and testing.	Human Connectome Project (HCP) [38], The Open MEG Archive (OMEGA) [86], ABIDE [87].
Analysis Toolkits & Software	Enable data preprocessing, connectome construction, and statistical modeling.	FieldTrip (for MEG analysis) [86], Python (with Scikit-learn, PyTorch/TensorFlow), R, specialized in-house Matlab code [6] [86].
Computational Frameworks	Provide specific algorithms for feature refinement and model building.	Convolutional Autoencoders for isolating unique features [38], Sparse Dictionary Learning [38], Connectome-Based Predictive Modeling (CPM) [6], Contrast Subgraph extraction [87].
Behavioral Assessment Tools	Provide the ground-truth data for training and validating predictive models.	Standardized tests like the Psychometric Entrance Test (for academic prediction) [6], clinical symptom severity scores (e.g., for ASD [87]), and cognitive batteries.

Understanding the biological basis of individual traits is a central goal of modern neuroscience. In this pursuit, the concept of a "neural fingerprint" has emerged, suggesting that individual subjects can be uniquely identified from a cohort based on features of their brain activity and connectivity [26]. The functional connectome (FC), defined as patterns of statistical dependencies between ongoing brain signals, serves as a key defining feature for such fingerprints [88] [26]. Recent studies demonstrate that these fingerprints are not only unique but also carry behavioral significance, linked to individual differences in cognitive functions like intelligence, working memory, and attention [88] [26].

The pursuit of robust neural fingerprints relies on non-invasive neuroimaging techniques, each with distinct strengths and limitations in capturing the brain's functional organization. This guide provides a comparative analysis of four primary modalities—functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), Magnetoencephalography (MEG), Electroencephalography (EEG), and functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS)—within the specific context of individual identification research. We summarize their technical specifications, present experimental data on their fingerprinting performance, and detail standard methodologies for deriving functional connectivity metrics essential for this field.

The following table summarizes the core technical characteristics of each modality, which directly influence their suitability for functional connectivity fingerprinting studies.

Table 1: Technical Specifications of Neuroimaging Modalities for Fingerprinting Research

Modality	Spatial Resolution	Temporal Resolution	Measured Signal	Key Advantages for Fingerprinting	Primary Limitations for Fingerprinting
fMRI	High (millimeters) [89]	Low (0.5-2 Hz, ~4-6s hemodynamic lag) [89]	Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) response [89]	High spatial resolution for whole-brain deep structures; considered gold standard for hemodynamic activity [89] [90]	Expensive, immobile equipment; sensitive to motion artifacts; low temporal resolution [31] [89]
MEG	High (millimeters with source reconstruction) [91]	Very High (milliseconds) [91]	Magnetic fields from intracellular neuronal currents [91]	Excellent temporal resolution and good spatial localization; direct measurement of neural activity [88] [26]	Very high equipment cost; requires magnetically shielded room; limited availability [92]
EEG	Low (~2 cm) [93]	Very High (milliseconds) [94] [93]	Electrical potential from synchronized postsynaptic potentials [94]	Excellent temporal resolution; portable and affordable; high test-retest reliability for fingerprints [94] [92]	Poor spatial resolution; signals attenuated by skull and tissues; sensitive to motion artifacts [94] [90]
fNIRS	Low (1-3 cm) [89]	Moderate (typically 2-10 Hz) [95] [89]	Hemodynamic changes (HbO/HbR concentration) [31] [94]	Portable, affordable, and robust to motion artifacts; measures similar hemodynamic response as fMRI [31] [89]	Limited to cortical surface measurements; limited penetration depth; lower spatial resolution [31] [89]

Fingerprinting Performance: Experimental Data

The capacity of a modality to generate unique and identifiable neural fingerprints is quantified using identification accuracy rates in test-retest paradigms. The table below summarizes key experimental findings.

Table 2: Experimental Fingerprinting Performance Across Modalities

Modality	Reported Identification Accuracy	Experimental Conditions & Key Features	Source
MEG	94.9% - 100%	Resting-state; using functional connectomes or spectral power features; stable with recordings as short as 30 seconds [26]	[26]
MEG	Performance varies	Dependent on functional connectivity measure and frequency band; highest in alpha/beta bands and visual/frontoparietal networks [88]	[88]
fNIRS	Resembles slower-frequency EEG coupling	Resting-state and motor imagery tasks; structure-function coupling varies across brain states [95]	[95]
EEG & fNIRS (Multimodal)	Improved real-time classification accuracy	Combined fNIRS and EEG data improved real-time EEG classification accuracy versus EEG alone [92]	[92]

Experimental Protocols for Functional Connectivity Fingerprinting

This section outlines standard methodologies for acquiring and processing data to derive functional connectivity fingerprints.

Protocol: Resting-State fNIRS-EEG Fingerprinting

This protocol is adapted from a study investigating structure-function relationships using simultaneous EEG and fNIRS [95].

1. Participant Preparation and Data Acquisition:

• Subjects: Recruit 18+ healthy adults.
• Setup: Use a compatible integration helmet (e.g., 3D-printed or cryogenic thermoplastic) to co-register EEG electrodes (30 electrodes, 10-5 system) and fNIRS optodes (36 channels, 10-20 system) [95] [92].
• Recording: Collect simultaneous data during a 1-minute resting-state session and task sessions (e.g., 30 trials of motor imagery). Sample EEG at 1000 Hz (down-sampled to 200 Hz) and fNIRS at 12.5 Hz (down-sampled to 10 Hz) [95].

2. fNIRS Data Preprocessing:

• Convert raw signals to optical density (OD) [95].
• Assess signal quality using the scalp-coupled index (SCI); exclude subjects with >50% of channels showing SCI < 0.7 [95].
• Apply a bandpass filter (0.02-0.08 Hz for resting state) [95].
• Reject motion-corrupted time segments using the global variance in temporal derivative (GVTD) metric [95].
• Remove systemic physiological artifacts (e.g., from scalp blood flow) using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [95].

3. EEG Data Preprocessing:

• Perform source reconstruction of the EEG signals to improve spatial localization [95].

4. Functional Connectivity and Fingerprint Analysis:

• Coregister functional data with a structural template (e.g., Desikan-Killiany atlas) to define Regions of Interest (ROIs) [95].
• Map structural and functional data onto the same anatomical framework [95].
• Calculate the Structural-Decoupling Index (SDI) using Graph Signal Processing (GSP) to quantify region-wise structure-function coupling for each modality [95].
• Perform participant differentiation by calculating correlation matrices between individuals' functional connectomes or spectral features and identifying the best match [26].

Protocol: MEG Fingerprinting and Behavioral Correlation

This protocol is based on studies exploring MEG brain fingerprints and their behavioral significance [88] [26].

1. Data Acquisition:

• Dataset: Use resting-state MEG data from 158 participants (e.g., from the Open MEG Archives - OMEGA) [26].
• Structural MRI: Acquire T1-weighted structural MRI volumes for all participants to constrain MEG source maps [26].

2. Data Preprocessing and Feature Extraction:

• Produce source maps of resting-state brain activity from MEG sensor data [26].
• Parcellate the cortical source time series into 68 ROIs using the Desikan-Killiany atlas [26].
• Generate two sets of features for each participant:
  • Functional Connectomes (FC): Calculate 68x68 functional connectivity matrices between ROIs. Use phase-coupling methods like phase-locking value (PLV) for optimal fingerprinting [88] [26].
  • Spectral Signal Power: Compute power-spectral-density (PSD) estimates within each of the 68 ROIs [26].

3. Fingerprinting and Behavioral Analysis:

• Run a differentiation challenge by correlating features (FC or PSD) from two datasets (within-session or between-session) for each pair of participants [26].
• Identify an individual by finding the highest correlation coefficient in the group matrix (success rate) [88] [26].
• Assess the behavioral significance of MEG connectomes by performing multivariate correlation analyses (e.g., Partial Least Square Correlation) between connectivity features and behavioral traits [88].

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

Neural and Hemodynamic Signaling Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the physiological pathways measured by electrophysiological (EEG/MEG) and hemodynamic (fMRI/fNIRS) modalities, which is fundamental to interpreting functional connectivity fingerprints.

Multimodal Fingerprinting Experimental Workflow

This workflow outlines the key stages in a concurrent fNIRS-EEG experiment for individual identification, from setup to analysis.

Research Reagent Solutions

This table lists essential tools, software, and databases used in functional connectivity fingerprinting research.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Resources for Connectivity Fingerprinting

Item Name	Function / Application	Specific Use Case / Notes
MNE-Python [95]	Open-source Python software for processing EEG, MEG, and fNIRS data.	Used for preprocessing, source reconstruction, and visualizing neurophysiological data.
Brainstorm [95]	Open-source MATLAB application for neuroimaging data processing.	Used for fNIRS and EEG data analysis and visualization.
AtlasViewer [31]	Brain mapping software solution.	Used for correct placement of fNIRS optodes based on anatomical information from standard brain atlases.
Desikan-Killiany Atlas [95] [26]	A brain atlas parcellating the cortical surface into 68 regions of interest (ROIs).	Standard template for mapping structural and functional data into consistent ROIs for connectivity analysis.
ARCHI Database [95]	A database containing a group-consensus structural connectome from diffusion MRI.	Provides a standard structural connectome for investigating structure-function relationships.
Graph Signal Processing (GSP) [95]	A mathematical framework for analyzing data defined on graphs.	Used to compute the Structural-Decoupling Index (SDI) to quantify structure-function coupling.
Open MEG Archives (OMEGA) [26]	An open-access repository of MEG data.	Provides a source of resting-state MEG data for fingerprinting studies and methodological development.

The human brain is a complex system operating across multiple spatial scales, from micro-scale molecular machinery to macro-scale brain-wide networks. A central challenge in modern neuroscience is understanding how these different levels of organization interact—specifically, how the brain's molecular architecture gives rise to its large-scale functional capabilities [96]. This guide explores the critical relationship between neurotransmitter systems and structural connectivity, providing researchers with experimental frameworks and data to advance the study of individual functional connectivity fingerprints. We objectively compare methodological approaches and present quantitative findings that demonstrate how chemoarchitectural maps align with and shape the brain's connectome, offering new avenues for targeted therapeutic development.

Quantitative Data: Receptor-Connectivity Relationships

Table 1: Measured Correlations Between Neurotransmitter Receptor Similarity and Brain Connectivity

Comparison Metric	Correlation Value	Statistical Significance	Experimental Context
Receptor Similarity vs. Structural Connectivity	r = 0.16	P = 1.6 × 10⁻⁸ (after regressing Euclidean distance)	PET data from 1,200+ healthy individuals; Human Connectome Project structural connectomes [97]
Receptor Similarity vs. Functional Connectivity	r = 0.23	P = 7.1 × 10⁻⁶¹ (after regressing Euclidean distance)	Same cohort as above; resting-state fMRI functional connectivity [97]
Receptor Similarity Within vs. Between Networks	Significant difference	Pspin = 0.001 (10,000 permutations)	Yeo-Krienen 7-network classification; spin-test significance assessment [97]

Receptor System Coverage in Major Studies

Table 2: Comprehensive Neurotransmitter Receptor Atlas Data Sources

Dataset Type	Number of Receptors/Transporters	Neurotransmitter Systems Covered	Sample Size	Spatial Resolution
PET Data Collation	19 receptors/transporters	9 systems: dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, acetylcholine, glutamate, GABA, histamine, cannabinoid, opioid	1,200+ healthy individuals	Whole-brain, parcellated into 100 cortical regions [97]
Autoradiography Validation	15 receptors	Independent validation of PET findings	3 postmortem brains	44 cytoarchitectonically defined cortical areas [97]
Transcriptomic Analysis	70 differentially expressed NRGs	Adrenergic, cholinergic, dopaminergic, GABA, glutamatergic, glycine, histamine, serotonin	97 AD vs. 98 normal samples	Identified 5 hub genes (HTR3C, HTR3E, ADRA2A, HTR3A, ADRA1D) with AUC >0.67 for AD diagnosis [98]

Experimental Protocols: Methodological Frameworks

Protocol 1: Constructing a Normative Receptor Atlas

Objective: To create a comprehensive whole-brain 3D atlas of neurotransmitter receptors and transporters from multi-site PET data.

Materials:

• PET data from multiple research groups (19 different tracers)
• 1,200+ healthy participants total (cohorts per tracer vary)
• T1-weighted structural MRI for anatomical reference
• Standardized brain parcellation (e.g., 100-region cortical atlas)

Procedure:

• Data Curation: Collate PET datasets from multiple research groups, ensuring standardized ethical approvals and participant screening.
• Image Preprocessing: For each tracer study, perform motion correction, attenuation correction, and anatomical coregistration to standard space.
• Quantification: Calculate binding potential or standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) for each receptor/transporter using appropriate reference regions.
• Normalization: Z-score receptor density values within each parcel to enable cross-receptor comparison.
• Matrix Construction: Create a region × receptor density matrix (100 × 19 for the primary analysis).
• Validation: Replicate findings in an independent autoradiography dataset of 15 neurotransmitter receptors from postmortem brains [97].

Analysis:

• Compute receptor similarity between brain regions as the correlation of their receptor fingerprints.
• Calculate the first principal component of receptor density to identify major organizational gradients.
• Test spatial autocorrelation using exponential distance decay models.

Protocol 2: Linking Receptor Distributions to Structural Connectivity

Objective: To quantify the relationship between neurotransmitter receptor similarity and structural connectivity patterns.

Materials:

• Receptor density matrix (from Protocol 1)
• Group-consensus structural connectomes (e.g., from Human Connectome Project)
• Diffusion-weighted MRI data
• Network parcellation (Yeon-Krienen 7-network system)

Procedure:

• Structural Connectome Construction: Use diffusion tractography to reconstruct white matter pathways between cortical regions.
• Receptor Similarity Calculation: For each region pair, compute Pearson correlation of their receptor density profiles across all 19 receptors.
• Within-Network Analysis: Calculate average receptor similarity for region pairs within the same intrinsic network versus between different networks.
• Statistical Testing: Assess significance against null models using:
  • Density-, degree-, and edge length-preserving surrogate connectomes (10,000 repetitions)
  • Spatial permutation tests ('spin tests') that preserve spatial autocorrelation (10,000 repetitions)
• Structure-Function Coupling: Model how receptor distributions augment the relationship between structural communicability and functional connectivity [97].

Analysis:

• Perform partial correlations controlling for Euclidean distance.
• Use linear regression with receptor similarity as predictor and structural connectivity as outcome.
• Implement cross-validation using distance-dependent methods to prevent spatial bias.

Signaling Pathways and Workflow Visualizations

Molecular to Systems-Level Integration Pathway

Figure 1: Molecular to Systems-Level Integration Pathway. This diagram illustrates the hierarchical organization from molecular components to system-level function, highlighting key relationships (red arrows) between neurotransmitter systems, structural connectivity, and cognitive processes.

Receptor Similarity Analysis Workflow

Figure 2: Receptor Similarity Analysis Workflow. This experimental pipeline outlines the process from multi-modal data acquisition through receptor similarity calculation to validation against independent datasets and clinical correlations.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Receptor-Connectivity Studies

Category	Specific Reagents/Tools	Function & Application	Example Use Case
PET Tracers	19 unique radioligands across 9 neurotransmitter systems	Quantify in vivo receptor density and transporter availability	Mapping dopamine D1/D2, serotonin 5-HT1A/1B, GABA-A, glutamate, cannabinoid, and opioid receptors [97]
Genetic Analysis Tools	ELISA kits, microarray platforms (e.g., GSE132903), WGCNA algorithms	Identify differentially expressed neurotransmitter receptor genes (NRGs)	Discovering 70 differentially expressed NRGs in Alzheimer's disease; identifying 5 hub genes (HTR3A, HTR3C, ADRA2A, HTR3E, ADRA1D) [98]
Molecular Biology Reagents	CIBERSORT algorithm, STRING database, GO and KEGG enrichment tools	Analyze immune cell infiltration and protein-protein interaction networks	Linking neurotransmitter receptor genes to immune infiltration patterns in Alzheimer's disease [98]
Neuroimaging Analysis Platforms	Human Connectome Project pipelines, Neurosynth cognitive atlas, spin-test permutation tools	Standardized processing of structural and functional MRI data; meta-analysis of cognitive functions	Relating receptor distributions to large-scale brain networks and cognitive domains [97]
Computational Modeling Tools	Communicability metrics, distance-dependent cross-validation, in-silico whole brain models	Quantify structure-function coupling and predict functional connectivity from structure and receptors	Demonstrating that receptor profiles improve prediction of functional connectivity, especially in unimodal areas [97] [96]

Comparative Analysis: Methodological Approaches

Strengths and Limitations of Different Mapping Techniques

Table 4: Comparison of Neurotransmitter Mapping Methodologies

Methodology	Spatial Resolution	Throughput	Key Advantages	Principal Limitations
PET Imaging	~4-8mm (human)	Moderate (multiple scans per tracer)	In vivo measurement in humans; whole-brain coverage; quantifiable binding parameters	Cannot map multiple receptors in same individual; limited by tracer availability; radiation exposure [97]
Autoradiography	Microscopic (postmortem)	Low (requires tissue samples)	High spatial resolution; precise laminar quantification; multiple receptors from same donor	Postmortem tissue only; limited to small sample sizes; no longitudinal assessment [97]
Transcriptomic Analysis	Regional or single-cell	High (microarray/RNA-seq)	Genome-wide coverage; identifies genetic regulators; can analyze large sample sizes	mRNA not always correlated with protein; postmortem artifacts; limited temporal dynamics [98]
Genetic Association Studies	System-level	High (genotyping)	Identifies clinically relevant variants; potential for personalized medicine	Usually indicates correlation, not causation; small effect sizes for individual variants [99]

Implications for Drug Development and Precision Medicine

The integration of neurotransmitter system mapping with connectome analysis presents significant opportunities for CNS drug development. Current approaches face substantial challenges, including the blood-brain barrier, disease heterogeneity, and high failure rates [100]. The Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline for 2025 includes 138 drugs in 182 clinical trials, with 30% being biological disease-targeted therapies and 43% small molecule DTTs [101]. Receptor-informed approaches could enhance this pipeline by:

• Target Identification: Novel receptor systems implicated in disorders (e.g., delta-type ionotropic glutamate receptors/GluDs for schizophrenia and anxiety) offer new therapeutic targets [102].
• Patient Stratification: Genetic variants in neurotransmitter system genes (COMT, SLC6A4, GRIN2B) can serve as biomarkers predicting treatment response to interventions like rTMS and SSRIs in OCD [99].
• Mechanism of Action Elucidation: Understanding how receptor distributions shape structural and functional connectivity provides insights into how therapeutics modulate network-level effects rather than just molecular targets.

The emerging paradigm of molecular-informed functional imaging enables researchers to transcend traditional organizational hierarchies, offering novel biological interpretability to functional connectivity fingerprints and creating new opportunities for targeted interventions in neurological and psychiatric disorders [96].

Conclusion

Functional connectivity fingerprinting has matured into a robust framework for identifying individuals based on the unique architecture of their brain networks. The field has moved beyond simple correlation, with advanced computational methods like tensor decomposition and dictionary learning significantly boosting identification accuracy to levels exceeding 99% in some studies. A critical insight is that the neural features most effective for identification are distinct from those predicting behavior, underscoring the need for purpose-built models. Future directions should focus on translating these research findings into clinical tools, particularly for early detection of neurological and psychiatric disorders and for tracking individual treatment responses in personalized medicine. Key challenges remain in standardizing methodologies across sites and further validating the biological underpinnings of these unique connectivity signatures to unlock their full potential in biomedicine.

References

• 1. Identifying individuals based on patterns of brain connectivity [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5008686/]
• 2. The quest for identifiability in human functional connectomes [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25089-1]
• 3. Discovering individual fingerprints in resting‐state ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10789221/]
• 4. Benchmarking methods for mapping functional connectivity ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02704-4]
• 5. Identifying Individuals by fNIRS-Based Brain Functional ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.813293/full]
• 6. Predicting Real‐Life Cognitive Scores From Functional ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12358942/]
• 7. Large-scale brain network [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_brain_network]
• 8. Understanding brain networks and brain organization - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4157099/]
• 9. Frontiers | Ultrafine brain intrinsic connectivity networks template via very-high-order independent component analysis of large-scale resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2025.1672129/full]
• 10. Behavioral Interpretations of Intrinsic Connectivity Networks [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3690655/]
• 11. Differential large-scale network functional connectivity in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-91465-3]
• 12. Contextual connectivity: A framework for understanding the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06866-w]
• 13. Differential alterations in brain structural network ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10317813/]
• 14. The frontoparietal network: function, electrophysiology, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6136121/]
• 15. The default mode network as a biomarker for monitoring the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4460295/]
• 16. The Journey of the Default Mode Network: Development ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/4/395]
• 17. Competition between frontoparietal control and default ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4526481/]
• 18. and Between-Network Functional Dysconnectivity of the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178125004779]
• 19. Default Mode Network Functional Connectivity As a ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2451902225000151]
• 20. Alterations of the default mode network, salience ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2025.1599987/full]
• 21. and between-network functional dysconnectivity of the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41270690/]
• 22. Externally induced frontoparietal synchronization ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/22001]
• 23. Functional Connectivity Within the Fronto-Parietal Network ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroergonomics/articles/10.3389/fnrgo.2021.718176/full]
• 24. Functional connectome fingerprinting [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8127140/]
• 25. Identifying Individuals by fNIRS-Based Brain Functional ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8873366/]
• 26. Brief segments of neurophysiological activity enable ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25895-8]
• 27. Exploring MEG brain fingerprints: Evaluation, pitfalls ... - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34237444/]
• 28. Functional connectome fingerprints of subjective psilocybin ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10898784/]
• 29. Brain connectivity fingerprinting and behavioural prediction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03185-3]
• 30. Task matters: Individual MEG signatures from naturalistic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811923001672]
• 31. Comparison of fNIRS with other neuroimaging modalities [https://www.artinis.com/blogpost-all/comparison-fnirs-vs-fmri]
• 32. Comparison of group-level, source localized activity for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5248968/]
• 33. VitorCarvalho_Thesis.pdf [https://hammer.purdue.edu/articles/thesis/VitorCarvalho_Thesis_pdf/28778333]
• 34. Functional Connectome Fingerprinting Through Tucker ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/9/4821]
• 35. Quantitative EEG fingerprints: Spatiotemporal stability in interhemispheric and interannual coherence - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39615633/]
• 36. Quantitative EEG fingerprints: Spatiotemporal stability in interhemispheric and interannual coherence - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016787602400182X]
• 37. Longitudinal study of fingerprint recognition - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507210/]
• 38. Functional Connectome Fingerprinting Using ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.26120v1]
• 39. Limitations of Correlation Coefficients in Research on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12242859/]
• 40. Structural-functional fingerprinting for abnormalities ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-22192-y]
• 41. PRESERVING HUMAN LARGE-SCALE BRAIN ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11452154/]
• 42. Efficient Dictionary Learning with Switch Sparse ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08201]
• 43. SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.09532v3]
• 44. Efficient Dictionary Learning with Switch Sparse ... [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/47CYFbrSyiJE2X5ot/efficient-dictionary-learning-with-switch-sparse]
• 45. Efficient Dictionary Learning with Switch Sparse ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=k2ZVAzVeMP]
• 46. saprmarks/dictionary_learning [https://github.com/saprmarks/dictionary_learning]
• 47. 2.4. Tensor-network principal components analysis [https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=4371050&type=30]
• 48. Tensor network factorizations: Relationships between brain ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811919303131]
• 49. Multi-paradigm fMRI fusion via sparse tensor decomposition in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7904970/]
• 50. A Tensor Statistical Model for Quantifying Dynamic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5896766/]
• 51. The Functional Relevance of Task-State Functional Connectivity [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8018740/]
• 52. A cognitive state transformation model for task-general and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922004001]
• 53. Cognitive task information is transferred between brain ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01000-w]
• 54. Towards a general-purpose foundation model for fMRI analysis [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.11167v1]
• 55. Functional connectome fingerprinting accuracy in youths and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7502841/]
• 56. Longitudinal study of fingerprint recognition - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4507210/]
• 57. Longitudinal Study of Facial Biometrics at the BEZ [https://arxiv.org/html/2507.06858v1]
• 58. Biometric linkage of longitudinally collected electronic case ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10436742/]
• 59. Machine learning based on functional and structural ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0730725X24000468]
• 60. Individualized functional connectome biomarkers predict ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-025-03726-4]
• 61. Machine Learning Classification Based on Individual Whole ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12090846/]
• 62. MR Data Quality Control - Center for Brain Science [https://cbs.fas.harvard.edu/facilities/neuroimaging/investigators/mr-data-quality-control/]
• 63. Quality control procedures and metrics for resting-state ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10406233/]
• 64. Ten simple rules for predictive modeling of individual ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919301533]
• 65. Fast and Efficient Causal Inference in Large-Scale Data via ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167947325001574]
• 66. A Benchmarking Study of Random Projections and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11838541/]
• 67. scValue: value-based subsampling of large-scale single-cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12165832/]
• 68. Enhancing Diversity and Improving Prediction Performance ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/8/4/86]
• 69. Prediction of drug target interaction based on under sampling ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318420]
• 70. Brain fingerprinting and cognitive behavior predicting using ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924001460]
• 71. Graph‐Regularized Manifold‐Aware Conditional Wasserstein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12358810/]
• 72. Estimation of functional connectivity in fMRI data using ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105381191101336X]
• 73. Parcellation of individual brains: From group level atlas to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763425001721]
• 74. An exemplar-based approach to individualized parcellation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5905726/]
• 75. A functional parcellation of the whole brain in high ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02764-6]
• 76. A Review on the Bioinformatics Tools for Neuroimaging [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4795522/]
• 77. Comparison of fMRI statistical software packages and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2570159/]
• 78. Which software packages did researchers use to meta ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1580808/full]
• 79. Improving Functional Connectome Fingerprinting with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8978572/]
• 80. The developing brain structural and functional connectome ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929322000603]
• 81. Spine-Prints: Transposing Brain Fingerprints to the Spinal Cord [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12157566/]
• 82. A large EEG dataset for studying cross-session variability ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01647-1]
• 83. Comparison of fMRI paradigms assessing visuospatial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5653292/]
• 84. Deep learning encodes robust discriminative ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20655-6]
• 85. The Importance of a Robust Formulation for Long-Term ... [https://www.coriolis-pharma.com/the-importance-of-a-robust-formulation-for-long-term-drug-development-success/]
• 86. Identifying individuals from their brain natural frequency ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12216093/]
• 87. Contrast subgraphs catch patterns of altered functional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04932-2]
• 88. Exploring MEG brain fingerprints: Evaluation, pitfalls, and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811921006078]
• 89. Applications and advances of combined fMRI-fNIRs ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11958174/]
• 90. EEG vs. MRI vs. fMRI - What are the Differences? [https://imotions.com/blog/learning/research-fundamentals/eeg-vs-mri-vs-fmri-differences/?srsltid=AfmBOoqySIKtE5YRROIF31lcqdekd2LWvX9z0_D8wgSbz-RAX3N0DL0B]
• 91. Overview of magnetoencephalography in basic principle, ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158224000470]
• 92. A Cross-Disciplinary Review of the fNIRS-EEG Dual ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/14/10/1022]
• 93. Simultaneous EEG and fNIRS recordings for semantic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-04967-0]
• 94. Concurrent fNIRS and EEG for Brain Function Investigation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9371171/]
• 95. Comparing structure–function relationships in brain ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79817-x]
• 96. Transcending organisational hierarchies with molecular- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763423001628]
• 97. Mapping neurotransmitter systems to the structural and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-022-01186-3]
• 98. Genes related to neurotransmitter receptors as potential ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304394024001939]
• 99. Neurotransmitter system gene variants as biomarkers for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1350978/full]
• 100. The future of CNS drug development: signs of real progress [https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/168079/the-future-of-cns-drug-development-signs-of-real-progress/]
• 101. Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline: 2025 - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12131090/]
• 102. Scientists Find Potential New Drug Target for Psychiatric ... [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2025/09/scientists-find-potential-new-drug-target-for-psychiatric-and-neurological-disorders]