Abstract

Functional connectivity analyses have given considerable insights into human brain function and organization. As research moves towards clinical application, test-retest reliability has become a main focus of the field. So far, the majority of studies have relied on resting-state paradigms to examine brain connectivity, based on its low demand and ease of implementation. However, the reliability of resting-state measures is mostly moderate, potentially due to its unconstrained nature. Recently, naturalistic viewing paradigms have gained popularity because they probe the human brain under more ecologically valid conditions, thereby possibly increasing reliability. Therefore, we here compared the reliability of graph metrics extracted from resting-state and naturalistic viewing in functional networks, across two sessions. We show that naturalistic viewing can increase reliability over resting-state, but that its effect varies between stimuli and networks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the effect of naturalistic viewing differs between two cohorts with Asian and European cultural backgrounds. Taken together, our study encourages the use of naturalistic viewing to increase reliability, but emphasizes the need to carefully select the appropriate stimulus and network for the respective research question.