Cited by 96Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchNeural dynamics and brain function

Functional connectivity and neurological recovery

Open access
Corbetta, Maurizio·2012·Developmental Psychobiology

Abstract

Modern theories of brain function emphasize the importance of distributed functional networks and synchronized activity within and between networks in mediating cognitive functions. This view highlights the importance of considering brain‐behavior relationships after focsal lesions not only as the result of local structural damage but also as a more widespread alteration of the physiological state of networks connected to the lesion. Recent findings demonstrate coherent activity in large‐scale brain networks not only during task performance, but also, surprisingly, at rest in the absence of stimuli, tasks, or overt responses. Moreover, breakdown of coherent activity at rest, even in regions that are structurally intact, correlates with behavioral deficits and with their recovery after injury. This network perspective is fundamental to understand not only healthy brain function, but also the pathophysiology of brain injuries, mechanisms of functional recovery, and the basis for novel interventions for therapy. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Psychobiol 54:239‐253, 2012.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/dev.20507

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Strength of functional connectivity in resting-state networks reflects a history of task-relevant coactivation, with stronger coherence for regions coactivated during task.

    “It has been argued that the strength of the functional connectivity in resting-state networks reflects a history of task-relevant coactivation, with stronger coherence in spontaneous activity at rest for regions that were coactivated or fired together during the task (Corbetta, 2012).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 79 · Cited by 96

Authors
Corbetta, M.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Corbetta, Maurizio
Venue
Developmental Psychobiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-17
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
239-253
ISSN
  • 0012-1630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2302
OpenAlex
W2037991676
Cited by
96
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Psychobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH71920-6, R01MH071920)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD061117)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
functional connectivity, neurological recovery, large-scale brain networks, focal brain lesions, brain-behavior relationship, network breakdown, behavioral deficits, brain injury recovery
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Injuries, Humans, Nerve Net, Neuronal Plasticity, Neurons, Recovery of Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review