Cited by 1,636Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

A whole brain fMRI atlas generated via spatially constrained spectral clustering

Open access
Craddock, R. Cameron, James, G.Andrew, Holtzheimer, Paul E., Hu, Xiaoping P., Mayberg, Helen S.·2012·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Connectivity analyses and computational modeling of human brain function from fMRI data frequently require the specification of regions of interests (ROIs). Several analyses have relied on atlases derived from anatomical or cyto-architectonic boundaries to specify these ROIs, yet the suitability of atlases for resting state functional connectivity (FC) studies has yet to be established. This article introduces a data-driven method for generating an ROI atlas by parcellating whole brain resting-state fMRI data into spatially coherent regions of homogeneous FC. Several clustering statistics are used to compare methodological trade-offs as well as determine an adequate number of clusters. Additionally, we evaluate the suitability of the parcellation atlas against four ROI atlases (Talairach and Tournoux, Harvard-Oxford, Eickoff-Zilles, and Automatic Anatomical Labeling) and a random parcellation approach. The evaluated anatomical atlases exhibit poor ROI homogeneity and do not accurately reproduce FC patterns present at the voxel scale. In general, the proposed functional and random parcellations perform equivalently for most of the metrics evaluated. ROI size and hence the number of ROIs in a parcellation had the greatest impact on their suitability for FC analysis. With 200 or fewer ROIs, the resulting parcellations consist of ROIs with anatomic homology, and thus offer increased interpretability. Parcellation results containing higher numbers of ROIs (600 or 1,000) most accurately represent FC patterns present at the voxel scale and are preferable when interpretability can be sacrificed for accuracy. The resulting atlases and clustering software have been made publicly available at: http://www.nitrc.org/projects/cluster_roi/.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.21333

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Use of inappropriate node definition, such as a gross structural atlas-based parcellation that corresponds poorly to functional boundaries, results in network matrices whose neurobiological interpretability is limited.

    “One specific risk is the use of inappropriate node definition [56, 66], such as a gross structural atlas-based parcellation that corresponds poorly to functional boundaries and results in network matrices whose neurobiological interpretability is limited”

    From Functional connectomics from resting-state fMRI (2013) · cites this paper as [66]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Craddock, R. C., James, G. A., Holtzheimer, P. E., Hu, X. P., & Mayberg, H. S.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
  • Craddock, R. Cameron
  • Hu, Xiaoping P.
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07-18
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
1914-1928
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2122457251
Cited by
1,636
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 98 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 125 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 124 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 143 · 2018: 135 · 2017: 153 · 2016: 115 · 2015: 103 · 2014: 74 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 27
FWCI
24.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH073719, P50MH077083, K23MH077869)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB002009)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
whole-brain parcellation, resting-state functional connectivity, spectral clustering, functional brain regions, spatially constrained clustering
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anatomy, Artistic, Atlases as Topic, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Software, Cluster Analysis, Young Adult

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