Cited by 31Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Light through the fog: Using precision fMRI data to disentangle the neural substrates of cognitive control

Open access
Smith, Derek M, Perez, Diana C, Porter, Alexis, Dworetsky, Ally, Gratton, Caterina·2021·Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Abstract

Cognitive control, the ability to engage in goal-related behavior, is linked to frontal, parietal, and cingulate brain regions. However, the underlying function(s) of these regions is still in question, with ongoing discussions about their specificity and/or multifunctionality. These brain regions are also among the most variable across individuals, which may confound multi-functionality with inter-individual heterogeneity. Precision fMRI-extended data acquisition from single individuals-allows for reliable individualized mapping of brain organization. We review examples of recent studies that use precision fMRI to surmount inter-individual variability in functional neuroanatomy. These studies provide evidence of interleaved specialized and multifunctional regions in the frontal cortex. We discuss the potential for these techniques to address outstanding controversies on the neural underpinnings of cognitive control.

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 · 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.12.004

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?

  • By collectively building a global model for the prediction of brain age, the FL paradigm in the neuroimaging domain works effectively.

    “By collectively building a global model for the prediction of brain age, the FL paradigm in the neuroimaging domain works effectively.”

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
Smith, D. M., Perez, D. C., Porter, A., Dworetsky, A., & Gratton, C.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Gratton, Caterina
Venue
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
40
Pages
19-26
ISSN
2352-1546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3126246193
Cited by
31
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (T32NS047987)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH118370, T32MH067564)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
cognitive control, interindividual variability, functional neuroanatomy, frontal cortex, parietal cortex, cingulate cortex, neural correlates

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