Functional connectivity and neurological recovery
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as 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
- ORCID
- 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
- green
- zenodo.org
- Licence
- 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