Cited by 89Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Functional connectivity at rest is sensitive to individual differences in executive function: A network analysis

Open access
Reineberg, Andrew E., Banich, Marie T.·2016·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Graph theory provides a means to understand the nature of network characteristics and connectivity between specific brain regions. Here it was used to investigate whether the network characteristics of the brain at rest are associated with three dimensions thought to underlie individual differences in executive function (EF)—common EF, shifting‐specific EF, and updating‐specific EF (Miyake and Friedman [2012]). To do so, both an a priori analysis focused mainly on select frontoparietal regions previously linked to individual differences in EF as well as a whole‐brain analysis were performed. The findings indicated that individual differences in each of the three dimensions of EF were associated with specific patterns of resting‐state connectivity both in a priori and other brain regions. More specifically, higher common EF was associated with greater integrative (i.e., more hublike) connectivity of cuneus and supplementary motor area but less integrative function of lateral frontal nodes and left temporal lobe nodes. Higher shifting‐specific EF was associated with more hublike motor‐related nodes and cingulo‐opercular nodes. Higher updating‐specific EF was associated with less hublike lateral and medial frontoparietal nodes. In general, these results suggested that higher ability in each of these three dimensions of EF was not solely characterized by the connectivity characteristics of frontoparietal regions. The pattern was complicated in that higher EF was associated with the connectivity profile of nodes outside of the traditional frontoparietal network, as well as with less hublike or centrality characteristics of some nodes within the frontoparietal network. Hum Brain Mapp 37:2959–2975, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.23219

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • Studies that have correlated individual differences in Common CC ability with a neural measure often find that areas within but also outside of the MD network contribute to performance.

    “Studies that have correlated individual differences in Common CC ability with a neural measure, such as functional activation of a particular region during a task, functional or structural connectivity, or gray matter volume, often find that areas within but also outside of the MD network contribute to performance [145–148].”

    From The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2022) · cites this paper as [146]

    The Results (Whole brain analysis) link individual differences in common EF to connectivity in frontoparietal, temporal, and cuneus regions, supporting the claim that relevant areas extend beyond a core control network. The paper does not classify those regions as within or outside the MD network specifically; it makes that distinction for the frontoparietal network. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hagberg AA, Schult DA, & Swart PJ (2008). Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy 2008), (SciPy), 11– 15.
  2. Herd SA, Banich MT, & O’Reilly RC (2006b). Neural Mechanisms of Cognitive Control: An Integrative Model of Stroop Task Performance and fMRI Data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 22– 32. 16417680

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reineberg, A. E., & Banich, M. T.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Reineberg, Andrew E.
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05-11
Volume
37
Issue
8
Pages
2959-2975
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2371876780
Cited by
88
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.09
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 (P50 MH079485)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
resting-state functional connectivity, executive function, individual differences, graph theory, brain network hubs, frontoparietal network, cingulo-opercular network, cuneus, supplementary motor area, shifting, updating, graph centrality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Individuality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Models, Theoretical, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Rest, Young Adult, Executive 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