This same logic would apply to other possible sources of nonneural variability as well. For example, in theory, greater fMRI variability in autism could

be a consequence of greater variability in neurovascular coupling rather than greater neural response variability. Such an alternative source of fMRI variability, however, would likely affect evoked responses and ongoing activity in a similar manner. The fact that larger fMRI variability in autism was evident only in evoked responses (Figure 4) and appeared mostly as “local variability” that remained after regressing out “global variability” (Figure 3) strongly suggests that it is a characteristic of the underlying stimulus-evoked neural activity. To further address these issues, however, we performed several control analyses. First, we SCH727965 nmr assessed the amount Selleckchem Talazoparib of head motion apparent in individuals of each group using two different analyses and found no significant differences across groups (Figures S7A and S7B). Second, we regressed out the estimated head motion time courses from the time course of each voxel in the data of each subject, thereby eliminating the correlation between head motion fMRI time courses.

Performing the same analyses on these processed data revealed equivalent results—fMRI variability remained significantly larger in the autism than

control group (Figure S7C). Note that regressing out the head motion time course does not entirely eliminate the effects of small head movements (>1 mm) that also generate transient changes in fMRI image intensity (Van Dijk et al., because 2012), but such head movements would not be able to generate spatially specific differences in response reliability (see above). Finally, we assessed variability of respiration and heart rate in each individual during the independent resting-state fMRI scan and found no evidence for differences across groups (Figures S8B and S8D). Our findings are compatible with genetic and animal model studies that describe autism as a disorder of synaptic development and function (Bourgeron, 2009; Gilman et al., 2011; Zoghbi, 2003) and/or an imbalance of excitation and inhibition (Markram et al., 2007; Rubenstein and Merzenich, 2003). Indeed, it has been reported that several animal models of autism exhibit abnormally high excitation-inhibition ratios (overreactive responses) as well as noisy asynchronous neural firing patterns (Gibson et al., 2008; Peñagarikano et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2008). Our results argue against overreactivity of neural responses, because mean response amplitudes were statistically indistinguishable across subject groups.