Cited by 131Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Comparison of diffusion tractography and tract-tracing measures of connectivity strength in rhesus macaque connectome

Open access
van den Heuvel, Martijn P., de Reus, Marcel A., Feldman Barrett, Lisa, Scholtens, Lianne H., Coopmans, Fraukje M.T., Schmidt, Ruben, Preuss, Todd M., Rilling, James K. +1 more·2015·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

With the mapping of macroscale connectomes by means of in vivo diffusion-weighted MR Imaging (DWI) rapidly gaining in popularity, one of the necessary steps is the examination of metrics of connectivity strength derived from these reconstructions. In the field of human macroconnectomics the number of reconstructed fiber streamlines (NOS) is more and more used as a metric of cortico-cortical interareal connectivity strength, but the link between DWI NOS and in vivo animal tract-tracing measurements of anatomical connectivity strength remains poorly understood. In this technical report, we communicate on a comparison between DWI derived metrics and tract-tracing metrics of projection strength. Tract-tracing information on projection strength of interareal pathways was extracted from two commonly used macaque connectome datasets, including (1) the CoCoMac database of collated tract-tracing experiments of the macaque brain and (2) the high-resolution tract-tracing dataset of Markov and Kennedy and coworkers. NOS and density of reconstructed fiber pathways derived from DWI data acquired across 10 rhesus macaques was found to positively correlate to tract-tracing based measurements of connectivity strength across both the CoCoMac and Markov dataset (both P < 0.001), suggesting DWI NOS to form a valid method of assessment of the projection strength of white matter pathways. Our findings provide confidence of in vivo DWI connectome reconstructions to represent fairly realistic estimates of the wiring strength of white matter projections. Our cross-modal comparison supports the notion of in vivo DWI to be a valid methodology for robust description and interpretation of brain wiring.

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.22828

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Most neuroanatomical connections are at least to a certain degree bidirectional and contain nested sub-regions with their own connections and corresponding weights.

    “While this was recently done to compare measures of connectivity strength between diffusion tractography and tract tracing data from macaque brain (van den Heuvel et al. 2015; Donahue et al. 2016), most neuroanatomical connections are at least to a certain degree bidirectional and contain nested sub-regions with their own connections and corresponding weights.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sporns O (2011): Networks of the Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Heuvel, M. P., de Reus, M. A., Feldman Barrett, L., Scholtens, L. H., Coopmans, F. M. T., Schmidt, R., Preuss, T. M., Rilling, J. K., & Li, L.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychiatry; University Medical Center Utrecht; The Netherlands
  • Department of Psychology, Northeastern University; Boston MA USA
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Emory National Primate Research Center (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-09
Volume
36
Issue
8
Pages
3064-3075
ISSN
1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1925906180
Cited by
131
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 2
FWCI
12.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
NWO VENI ((# 451-12-001))
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
diffusion tractography, neural tracing, connection strength, rhesus monkeys, connectome, fiber density, corticocortical connections
MeSH terms
Animals, Atlases as Topic, Brain, Female, Macaca mulatta, Male, Neural Pathways, Databases, Factual, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Neuroanatomical Tract-Tracing Techniques, Connectome, White Matter

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