Resting-state functional connectivity (FC) has distinct, personalized patterns that could serve as a unique fingerprint of each individual’s brain. While previous brain fingerprinting methods have used FC maps over a scanning session (static method), it has been shown that the brain is a dynamic system that switches between several metastable states, each of which has a different FC map. Taking the dynamic nature of brain connectivity into account will likely lead to more subject-specific information and better individual identification.
Methods:
In this article, we derived the state-specific FCs using sliding window correlation and clustering and evaluated their performance in individual identification and cognitive score prediction.
Results:
The resultant dynamic fingerprints outperformed the static fingerprints in identification accuracy. Furthermore, some of the brain states were more accurate in predicting cognitive scores, indicating that connectivity in some brain states is informative of cognitive abilities, possibly useful as biomarkers for brain disorders.
Discussion:
These findings suggest that incorporating dynamic information captures subject-specific connectivity features that are not present in static FC alone. The observation that specific states contribute more to cognitive prediction further highlights their potential utility as biomarkers for brain disorders.
Impact Statement
Our findings suggest that state-specific functional connectivity (FC) patterns of the brain are unique for each individual. These brain states predicted participants’ cognitive performance, suggesting that they have the potential to be used as biomarkers for cognitive function or neurological disorders. Integrating state-based FC into clinical frameworks could potentially enhance early diagnosis and patient stratification and lead to targeted interventions for neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative conditions.
AiranRD, VogelsteinJT, PillaiJJ, et al.Factors affecting characterization and localization of interindividual differences in functional connectivity using MRI. Hum Brain Mapp, 2016; 37(5):1986–1997; doi: 10.1002/hbm.23150
2.
AllenEA, DamarajuE, PlisSM, et al.Tracking whole-brain connectivity dynamics in the resting state. Cereb Cortex, 2014; 24(3):663–676; doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs352
3.
BaldassarreA, LewisCM, CommitteriG, et al.Individual variability in functional connectivity predicts performance of a perceptual task. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2012; 109(9):3516–3521; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1113148109
4.
CabralJ, VidaurreD, MarquesP, et al.Cognitive performance in healthy older adults relates to spontaneous switching between states of functional connectivity during rest. Sci Rep, 2017; 7(1):5135; doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05425-7
5.
CaiB, ZhangG, ZhangA, et al.Functional connectome fingerprinting: Identifying individuals and predicting cognitive functions via autoencoder. Hum Brain Mapp, 2021; 42(9):2691–2705; doi: 10.1002/hbm.25394
6.
CalhounVD, AdaliT. Time-varying brain connectivity in fMRI data: Whole-brain data-driven approaches for capturing and characterizing dynamic states. IEEE Signal Process Mag, 2016; 33(3):52–66; doi: 10.1109/MSP.2015.2478915
ChenQ, KenettYN, CuiZ, et al.Dynamic switching between brain networks predicts creative ability. Commun Biol, 2025; 8(1):54; doi: 10.1038/s42003-025-07470-9
9.
ChenS, LangleyJ, ChenX, et al.Spatiotemporal modeling of brain dynamics using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging with Gaussian hidden Markov model. Brain Connect, 2016; 6(4):326–334; doi: 10.1089/brain.2015.0398
10.
ColeMW, ReynoldsJR, PowerJD, et al.Multi-task connectivity reveals flexible hubs for adaptive task control. Nat Neurosci, 2013; 16(9):1348–1355; doi: 10.1038/nn.3470
11.
ColenbierN, SareenE, Puntas TdA, et al.Task matters: Individual MEG signatures from naturalistic and neurophysiological brain states. Neuroimage, 2023; 271:120021; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120021
12.
DamarajuE, AllenEA, BelgerA, et al.Dynamic functional connectivity analysis reveals transient states of dysconnectivity in schizophrenia. Neuroimage Clin, 2014; 5:298–308; doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.07.003
13.
FinnES, ShenX, ScheinostD, et al.Functional connectome fingerprinting: Identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity. Nat Neurosci, 2015; 18(11):1664–1671; doi: 10.1038/nn.4135
14.
FiorenzatoE, StrafellaAP, KimJ, et al.Dynamic functional connectivity changes associated with dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Brain, 2019; 142(9):2860–2872; doi: 10.1093/brain/awz192
15.
FuZ, SuiJ, IrajiA, et al.Cognitive and psychiatric relevance of dynamic functional connectivity states in a large (N> 10,000) children population. Mol Psychiatry, 2025; 30(2):402–413; doi: 10.1038/s41380-024-02683-6
16.
GaoW, EltonA, ZhuH, et al.Intersubject variability of and genetic effects on the brain’s functional connectivity during infancy. J Neurosci, 2014; 34(34):11288–11296; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5072-13.2014
17.
GhaffariA, AbouzakiM, RomeroY, et al.Connectome-based predictive modeling of grip strength: A marker of physical frailty. Front Neurosci, 2025; 19:1697908; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2025.1697908
18.
GlasserMF, SotiropoulosSN, WilsonJA, et al.; WU-Minn HCP Consortium. The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the human connectome project. Neuroimage, 2013; 80:105–124; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.127
19.
GreeneAS, HorienC, BarsonD, et al.Why is everyone talking about brain state? Trends Neurosci, 2023; 46(7):508–524; doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2023.04.001
HellyerPJ, ScottG, ShanahanM, et al.Cognitive flexibility through metastable neural dynamics is disrupted by damage to the structural connectome. J Neurosci, 2015; 35(24):9050–9063; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4648-14.2015
22.
HuZ, DengY, LiB. The switching rates of dynamic functional networks differently contribute to cross-sectional and longitudinal cognition in mild cognitive impairment. J Integr Neurosci, 2022; 21(6):170; doi: 10.31083/j.jin2106170
23.
HussainS, LangleyJ, SeitzAR, et al.A novel hidden Markov approach to studying dynamic functional connectivity states in human neuroimaging. Brain Connect, 2023; 13(3):154–163; doi: 10.1089/brain.2022.0031
24.
KwonJ, SeoJ, WangH, et al.Predicting task-related brain activity from resting-state brain dynamics with fMRI Transformer. Imaging Neurosci (Camb), 2025; 3:imag_a_00440; doi: 10.1162/imag_a_00440
25.
LinsenF, VerhoevenJE, van TolM-J, et al.Dynamic functional connectivity brain state dynamics and topological organization in major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and childhood trauma. J Affect Disord, 2026; 392:120106; doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2025.120106
26.
LiuJ, LiaoX, XiaM, et al.Chronnectome fingerprinting: Identifying individuals and predicting higher cognitive functions using dynamic brain connectivity patterns. Hum Brain Mapp, 2018; 39(2):902–915; doi: 10.1002/hbm.23890
27.
LoaliyanSS, Ver SteegG. Comparative analysis of generalization and harmonization methods for 3d brain fmri images: A case study on openbhb dataset. In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). IEEE: 2024; pp. 4915–4923.
28.
LuJ, YanT, YangL, et al.Brain fingerprinting and cognitive behavior predicting using functional connectome of high inter-subject variability. Neuroimage, 2024; 295:120651; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120651
29.
MantwillM, GellM, KrohnS, et al.Brain connectivity fingerprinting and behavioural prediction rest on distinct functional systems of the human connectome. Commun Biol, 2022; 5(1):261; doi: 10.1038/s42003-022-03185-3
30.
MolenberghsP, MesulamMM, PeetersR, et al.Remapping attentional priorities: Differential contribution of superior parietal lobule and intraparietal sulcus. Cereb Cortex, 2007; 17(11):2703–2712; doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhl179
31.
O’ConnorD, LakeEM, ScheinostD, et al.Resample aggregating improves the generalizability of connectome predictive modeling. Neuroimage, 2021; 236:118044; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118044
32.
OuJ, XieL, WangP, et al.Modeling brain functional dynamics via hidden Markov models. In: 2013 6th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER). IEEE: 2013; pp. 569–572.
33.
PanY, QuH, ZhaoY, et al.Differential dynamic functional network connectivity in different motor subtypes of Parkinson’s disease. Brain Res Bull, 2025; 229:111460; doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2025.111460
34.
PandaR, BharathRD, GeorgeL, et al.Unraveling brain functional connectivity of encoding and retrieval in the context of education. Brain Cogn, 2014; 86:75–81; doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.01.018
35.
PandaR, ThibautA, Lopez-GonzalezA, et al.Disruption in structural–functional network repertoire and time-resolved subcortical fronto-temporoparietal connectivity in disorders of consciousness. Elife, 2022; 11:e77462; doi: 10.7554/eLife.77462
36.
PangX, JiY, HuC, et al.Altered dynamic functional network connectivity patterns in Alzheimer’s disease: Insights into neural dysfunction. Front Aging Neurosci, 2025; 17:1693649; doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1617191
37.
RabanyL, BrockeS, CalhounVD, et al.Dynamic functional connectivity in schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorder: Convergence, divergence and classification. Neuroimage Clin, 2019; 24:101966; doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101966
38.
RazaviSM, TranTM, WilsonSE, et al.Brain state transition disruptions in Alzheimer’s disease: Insights from EEG state dynamics. In: 2025 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). IEEE: 2025; pp. 1–5.
39.
RosenbergMD, FinnES, ScheinostD, et al.A neuromarker of sustained attention from whole-brain functional connectivity. Nat Neurosci, 2016; 19(1):165–171; doi: 10.1038/nn.4179
40.
SantarnecchiE, EmmendorferA, TadayonS, et al.Network connectivity correlates of variability in fluid intelligence performance. Intelligence, 2017; 65:35–47; doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.002
41.
SasseL, LarabiDI, OmidvarniaA, et al.Intermediately synchronised brain states optimise trade-off between subject specificity and predictive capacity. Commun Biol, 2023; 6(1):705; doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-05073-w
42.
SchiffND. Mesocircuit mechanisms in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of consciousness. Presse Med, 2023; 52(2):104161; doi: 10.1016/j.lpm.2022.104161
43.
SeeleyWW, MenonV, SchatzbergAF, et al.Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci, 2007; 27(9):2349–2356; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007
44.
ShakilS, LeeC-H, KeilholzSD. Evaluation of sliding window correlation performance for characterizing dynamic functional connectivity and brain states. Neuroimage, 2016; 133:111–128; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.074
45.
ShenX, FinnES, ScheinostD, et al.Using connectome-based predictive modeling to predict individual behavior from brain connectivity. Nat Protoc, 2017; 12(3):506–518; doi: 10.1038/nprot.2016.178
46.
ShenX, TokogluF, PapademetrisX, et al.Groupwise whole-brain parcellation from resting-state fMRI data for network node identification. Neuroimage, 2013; 82:403–415; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.081
47.
SmithSM, NicholsTE, VidaurreD, et al.A positive-negative mode of population covariation links brain connectivity, demographics and behavior. Nat Neurosci, 2015; 18(11):1565–1567; doi: 10.1038/nn.4125
48.
St-OngeF, JavanrayM, Pichet BinetteA, et al.Functional connectome fingerprinting across the lifespan. Netw Neurosci, 2023; 7(3):1206–1227; doi: 10.1162/netn_a_00320
49.
StubbyET, RazaviSM, KhanmohammadiS. Functional connectivity disruptions in Alzheimer’s disease: A maximum flow perspective. In: International Conference on Computational Advances in Bio and Medical Sciences. Springer; 2023; pp. 229–237.
50.
TorabiM, MitsisGD, PolineJ-B. On the variability of dynamic functional connectivity assessment methods. Gigascience, 2024; 13:giae009; doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giae009
51.
Van De VilleD, FaroujY, PretiMG, et al.When makes you unique: Temporality of the human brain fingerprint. Sci Adv, 2021; 7(42):eabj0751; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj0751
52.
Van EssenDC, SmithSM, BarchDM, et al.; WU-Minn HCP Consortium. The WU-Minn human connectome project: An overview. Neuroimage, 2013; 80:62–79; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041
53.
Van EssenDC, UgurbilK, AuerbachE, et al.; WU-Minn HCP Consortium. The human connectome project: A data acquisition perspective. Neuroimage, 2012; 62(4):2222–2231; doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.018
54.
WangL, LiK, ChenX, et al.Application of convolutional recurrent neural network for individual recognition based on resting state fMRI data. Front Neurosci, 2019; 13:434; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00434
55.
WangQ, XuY, ZhaoT, et al.Individual uniqueness in the neonatal functional connectome. Cereb Cortex, 2021; 31(8):3701–3712; doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhab041
56.
XueC, QiW, YuanQ, et al.Disrupted dynamic functional connectivity in distinguishing subjective cognitive decline and amnestic mild cognitive impairment based on the triple-network model. Front Aging Neurosci, 2021; 13:711009; doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.711009
57.
ZangF, LiuX, FanD, et al.; Alzheimer’s Disease Metabolomics Consortium. Dynamic functional network connectivity and its association with lipid metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Neurosci Ther, 2024; 30(9):e70029; doi: 10.1111/cns.70029
58.
ZhaoF, ChenZ, RekikI, et al.A novel unit-based personalized fingerprint feature selection strategy for dynamic functional connectivity networks. Front Neurosci, 2021; 15:651574; doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.651574
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
