Behavioral Interpretations of Intrinsic Connectivity Networks

By Angela R. Laird, Peter T. Fox, Simon B. Eickhoff, J. Turner, Kimberly L. Ray, D. R. McKay, David C. Glahn, Christian F. Beckmann, Stephen M. Smith. 2011

1,060 citations recorded by the source corpus.

An increasingly large number of neuroimaging studies have investigated functionally connected networks during rest, providing insight into human brain architecture. Assessment of the functional qualities of resting state networks has been limited by the task-independent state, which results in an inability to relate these networks to specific mental functions. However, it was recently demonstrated that similar brain networks can be extracted from resting state data and data extracted from thousands of task-based neuroimaging experiments archived in the BrainMap database. Here, we present a full functional explication of these intrinsic connectivity networks at a standard low order decomposition using a neuroinformatics approach based on the BrainMap behavioral taxonomy as well as a stratified, data-driven ordering of cognitive processes. Our results serve as a resource for functional interpretations of brain networks in resting state studies and future investigations into mental operations and the tasks that drive them.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

The modular and integrative functional architecture of the human brain (2015, methodology): “Unlike previous attempts to derive an ontology of cognitive functions by applying independent component analysis to the BrainMap database and then mapping the components to tasks post hoc (33, 34), the approach we implemented jointly models the association between brain activation and tasks under th”
Cognitive relevance of the community structure of the human brain functional coactivation network (2013, result): “(The methodological and substantive commonalities and differences between ICA and graph analysis of the functional coactivation and connectivity networks are detailed more extensively in SI Discussion.)”
Intrinsic architecture underlying the relations among the default, dorsal attention, and frontoparietal control networks of the human brain (2012, positive): “Spatially distributed task-driven activity coheres to these intrinsic connectivity patterns (Laird et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2009), suggesting that intrinsic”
Principal components of functional connectivity: A new approach to study dynamic brain connectivity during rest (2013, background): “These networks of regionswith coherent activity during rest are consistent across subjects and closely resemble the brain's functional organization of evoked responses (Damoiseaux et al., 2006; Fox and Raichle, 2007; Laird et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2009).”
Functional connectivity dynamics: Modeling the switching behavior of the resting state (2015, background): “…imaging (fMRI) studies have demonstrated that in the absence of an overt task, ﬂ uctuations in the blood oxygenation-level dependent (BOLD) fMRI signals correlate across functionally related brain regions in task conditions (Gusnard and Raichle, 2001; Laird et al., 2011; Raichle and Mintun, 2006).”
On the relationship between the “default mode network” and the “social brain” (2012, neutral): “…identified are the medial posterior cortex, specifically posterior cingulate cortex (PCC; areas 23/31) and often the precuneus, the medial frontal cortex (MFC; including areas 24/10-m/32), and bilateral inferior parietal and posterior temporal areas around the temporoparietal junction area (TPJ).”
Network attributes for segregation and integration in the human brain. (2013, result): “This relationship between task-free and task-derived components is in agreement with metaanalyses of fMRI activation studies and RSNs, which have demonstrated associations between anatomically distinct RSNs and specific behavioral and cognitive domains [36].”
Navigating Into the Future or Driven by the Past (2013, background): “…of functional connectivity that are stable across conditions including during rest (Greicius, Krasnow, Reiss, & Menon, 2003), during active tasks (Laird et al., 2011; S. M. Smith et al., 2009), and over time (Shehzad et al., 2009; Zuo et al., 2010) and which correspond to biological markers of…”
A Convergent Functional Architecture of the Insula Emerges Across Imaging Modalities (2012, positive): “Finally, as others have pointed out (Deen et al., 2011; Laird et al., 2011) the use of pre-defined ROIs allows researchers to test hypotheses concerning differential localization or timing of stimulus or task-evoked responses without “double-dipping” (Kriegeskorte et al.”
Dynamic functional connectivity: Promise, issues, and interpretations (2013, result): “Patterns of FC observed at rest have also been shown to resemble those elicited by more traditional task-based paradigms or derived directly from task-data (Biswal et al., 1995; Calhoun et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2006; Laird et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2009; Vincent et al., 2007).”
Contributions and challenges for network models in cognitive neuroscience (2014, background): “Further studies showed that most RSNs are associated with specific behavioral or cognitive domains and that these associations are strongest for unimodal networks and more diffuse for networks involved in higher cognitive processes 52 .”
Towards a Universal Taxonomy of Macro-scale Functional Human Brain Networks (2019, neutral): “While there is a broad convergence between task-evoked networks (Smith et al. 2009; Laird et al. 2011; Yeo et al. 2016) and resting-state fMRI derived networks (Yeo et al. 2011), there is not a perfect match.”