The DOI matches its Crossref record; 355 of the 355 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 122 of the 334 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction
Open accessAbstract
The cingulum bundle is a prominent white matter tract that interconnects frontal, parietal, and medial temporal sites, while also linking subcortical nuclei to the cingulate gyrus. Despite its apparent continuity, the cingulum's composition continually changes as fibres join and leave the bundle. To help understand its complex structure, this review begins with detailed, comparative descriptions of the multiple connections comprising the cingulum bundle. Next, the impact of cingulum bundle damage in rats, monkeys, and humans is analysed. Despite causing extensive anatomical disconnections, cingulum bundle lesions typically produce only mild deficits, highlighting the importance of parallel pathways and the distributed nature of its various functions. Meanwhile, non-invasive imaging implicates the cingulum bundle in executive control, emotion, pain (dorsal cingulum), and episodic memory (parahippocampal cingulum), while clinical studies reveal cingulum abnormalities in numerous conditions, including schizophrenia, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's disease. Understanding the seemingly diverse contributions of the cingulum will require better ways of isolating pathways within this highly complex tract.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review integrates anatomical tracing, lesion, cingulotomy, and diffusion MRI evidence to argue that the cingulum bundle is not a unitary tract: its connections and functions change along its length, with anterior/dorsal portions linked to executive-attentional processes and parahippocampal portions to memory. It finds cingulum abnormalities across many psychiatric and neurological conditions, yet lesion and cingulotomy effects are often surprisingly mild, likely because cingulum functions are distributed and supported by alternate routes.
Key findings
- The cingulum contains short and long sagittal association fibres plus fibres radiating to cortical and subcortical sites; few, if any, connections extend its entire length. The authors recommend five subdivisions—subgenual, anterior cingulate, midcingulate, retrosplenial, and parahippocampal—based on Heilbronner and Haber (2014) plus the midcingulate area.
- Dorsal/anterior cingulum microstructure correlates with executive function and attention, while parahippocampal cingulum is more linked to memory. In rats, cingulum bundle lesions most consistently affect allocentric spatial tasks but are far less disruptive than anterior thalamic lesions, and fornix lesions produce more severe spatial memory deficits; crossed unilateral cingulum/fornix lesions had little or no apparent effect on T-maze alternation or radial-arm maze working memory (unpublished data), whereas bilateral fornix lesions severely disrupted both.
- dMRI studies commonly report reduced FA and increased diffusivity in the cingulum across schizophrenia, ADHD, depression, PTSD, OCD, and ASD, most consistently in OCD, ASD, and PTSD and concentrated in the dorsal cingulum. Cited meta-analytic/review figures include OCD: 22 datasets/537 cases; ASD: 33 studies, though a five-study meta-analysis found no significant cingulum FA difference; PTSD: seven studies with mixed FA increases/decreases.
- A prospective series of 198 cingulotomy cases reported lasting improvement in approximately half treated for OCD, with slightly better outcomes for anxiety/affective disorders, and over 50% of chronic pain patients had appreciable relief; cognition was often preserved, though attention/executive deficits were reported. The cingulum is one of the last major tracts to mature, with mean age to peak FA reported as 42 years.
Methods
- Narrative review; no primary data collection. It synthesizes cross-species axonal tracing (rat, macaque), lesion studies in rodents and nonhuman primates, human cingulotomy clinical literature, and human diffusion MRI/DTI studies.
- Evidence is organized into tables: Table 1 compares cingulum bundle lesion effects with anterior cingulate, retrosplenial, anterior thalamic, and fornix lesions; Table 2 lists dMRI findings in psychiatric conditions; Table 3 maps functions to cingulum subdivisions. Cited samples include 202 community adults, 220 healthy older adults, 257 healthy individuals aged 13–84, and 25 MCI patients vs 20 controls.
- Main analysis is qualitative synthesis and cross-species comparison, with a recommendation for five cingulum subdivisions and discussion of dMRI methodological limitations.
Limitations
- Paper-stated: dMRI is correlative, not causal; it cannot determine afferent/efferent direction; fibre crossing and tracking limitations can cause streamlines to jump pathways; CSF partial-volume effects can bias FA/MD; cingulum subdivisions and terminology are inconsistent. Lesion studies often lack verification of disconnection extent; cingulotomy literature often lacks formal post-operative assessments, controls, and blinding; no selective cingulum bundle lesions have been investigated in nonhuman primates, and selective parahippocampal cingulum pathology is lacking.
- Evident from text: as a narrative review, no systematic search or inclusion criteria are reported, and conclusions draw on heterogeneous studies and methods; some key crossed-lesion data are unpublished.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures







Verification
Claims the paper makes
69 No full text of the sources · 46 Own interpretation · 40 Partly supported · 38 Supported · 38 Sources not found · 17 Supported so far · 17 Not checked yet · 17 No basis given · 6 Own method · 5 Couldn’t confirm · 3 Own result · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“In contrast, combat veterans with PTSD had increased cingulum FA (Davenport et al., 2015).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Post-Traumatic stress disorder
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Davenport et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Voxelwise Comparisons section reports higher GFA in a cluster including the cingulum, but states that PTSD effects on FA were not significant. The Conclusion likewise identifies higher GFA—not FA—in the bilateral cingulum. The claim substitutes FA for the measure on which the paper found an increase. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Consequently, few, if any, connections extend the entire length of the tract (Heilbronner and Haber, 2014).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Structure
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Heilbronner and Haber, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) says many brain regions send projections through only part of the cingulum bundle, supporting the general point that connections need not span it. But “few, if any” is stronger than the paper establishes: the Segmenting the CB section (page unavailable) says many fibers travel through all four segments, without establishing how many individual connections traverse the tract’s full length. (LLM, conf=0.81)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Initial DTI tractography studies portrayed the cingulum as a unitary bundle (e.g., Catani et al., 2002; Xie et al., 2005; see Fig. 6A).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Catani et al., 2002 source
The Long Association (Intrahemispheric) Fibers section describes one reconstructed trajectory of the cingulum, and Figure 10 presents it as the left cingulum. The paper distinguishes long and short fibers within that tract, but does not portray them as separate bundles. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Xie et al., 2005 source
- Not matchedcites Fig. 6A
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, to better reflect its changing anatomical properties, reconstructions increasingly distinguished between the ‘dorsal’ and ‘ventral’ cingulum, i.e., above or below the splenium (e.g., Budisavljevic et al., 2015; Fig. 6B) which roughly corresponds to the distinction between cingulum cingulate gyrus and cingulum angular bundle (e.g., Ezzati et al., 2016).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Budisavljevic et al., 2015 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Supportedcites Ezzati et al., 2016 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“there is a marked extension as the tract contains some fibres from across almost all parts of the prefrontal cortex (Heilbronner and Haber, 2014)”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Heilbronner and Haber, 2014 source
The Results sections on frontal polar, orbitofrontal, and dorsal and lateral frontal cortex describe fibres from multiple prefrontal regions travelling through the cingulum bundle. The Summary of noncingulate cortical fibers confirms this broad frontal contribution while noting that different fibres use different portions of the bundle. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Accordingly, Heilbronner and Haber (2014) used monkey connectivity to help subdivide the primate cingulum into four divisions; subgenual, rostral dorsal (anterior cingulate), caudal dorsal (retrosplenial), and temporal (parahippocampal).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Heilbronner and Haber, 2014 source
In “Segmenting the CB” (page unavailable), the authors say they used connections through the bundle to divide it into four portions: rostral subgenual, rostral dorsal, caudal dorsal, and temporal. The Introduction (page unavailable) specifies that they identified those connections in monkeys. The citing sentence paraphrases that division. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, some dMRI studies have added additional cingulum subdivisions (Kennis et al., 2016; Metzler-Baddeley et al., 2012b; Whitford et al., 2014).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kennis et al., 2016 source
The Material and methods > Statistical analyses passage lists five cingulum subdivisions—rostral, caudal, posterior, isthmus and hippocampal—compared using diffusion images. This supports citing the study as an example of dMRI research using additional cingulum subdivisions. The indexed passage provides no page number. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Metzler-Baddeley et al., 2012b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Whitford et al., 2014 source
The Materials and methods section describes using DTI tractography to extract five cingulum-bundle subcomponents, defined by the regions they connect. This supports citing Whitford et al. as an example of a dMRI study that used additional cingulum subdivisions. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For this reason, it is difficult to interpret differences/changes in FA and diffusivity metrics in terms of any specific biophysical property of white matter (Wheeler-Kingshott and Cercignani, 2009; Jones, 2010).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wheeler-Kingshott and Cercignani, 2009 source
The Discussion says it is extremely difficult to associate changes in DTI-derived parameters unambiguously with specific biophysical changes. The paper identifies FA as a DTI-derived parameter, although its detailed caution focuses on axial and radial diffusivities. Page numbers are not available in the supplied copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not matchedcites Jones, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Similar lesions also affect effort-based decision making (Walton et al., 2002).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Walton et al., 2002 source
The Discussion reports a profound change in effort-based decision making in rats with medial frontal cortex lesions: after surgery, they shifted from choosing the high-reward arm to choosing the low-reward arm. This directly supports the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Lesions of the anterior cingulate cortex disrupt performance on the 5-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task (5-CSRTT) (Dalley et al., 2004)”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dalley et al., 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) reports that lesions of the entire medial prefrontal cortex disrupt 5-CSRT task performance, but it does not establish that lesions specifically of the anterior cingulate cortex do so. It also reports performance changes after lesions that spare the anterior cingulate cortex. The paper’s own results concern cholinergic lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex, not isolated anterior cingulate lesions. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
- It may state two separate claims as one. 71
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Other researchers using the constrained spherical deconvolution algorithm (Tournier et al., 2004) for fibre tracking have divided the tract three-ways, e.g., into its ‘subgenual’, ‘retrosplenial’ (supracallosal), and ‘parahippocampal’ (ventral) components (Jones et al., 2013; see Fig. 6C).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tournier et al., 2004 source
- Supportedcites Jones et al., 2013 source
The Introduction identifies subgenual, retrosplenial, and parahippocampal as the three selected cingulum subdivisions. Materials and methods (Tract reconstructions; page unavailable) states that fibre tracking followed peaks reconstructed using constrained spherical deconvolution (CSD). (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Fig. 6C
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The laterodorsal nucleus projects to area 23 (Shibata and Yukie, 2003) and 30 (Morris et al., 1999b), with both the laterodorsal and anterior thalamic nuclei also reaching medial parietal area 7 m (precuneus) (Heilbronner and Haber, 2014), while laterodorsal fibres also extend to more lateral parietal areas (Mufson and Pandya, 1984).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shibata and Yukie, 2003 source
- Not matchedcites Morris et al., 1999b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Heilbronner and Haber, 2014 source
The AV/LD thalamus section reports that fibers from the anterior ventral/lateral dorsal thalamic region terminate in the precuneus. Table 1 identifies parietal area 7M as the precuneus and lists it among the thalamic fibers’ terminal areas. The other projections in the citing sentence have separate citations and are not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These three subdivisions were found to exhibit distinct FA measures and occupied different medial-lateral positions within the bundle, even in areas where they overlapped (Jones et al., 2013).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jones et al., 2013 source
The Results (Tract reconstructions) describe the subdivisions’ medial-to-lateral positions, including where the retrosplenial and parahippocampal subdivisions overlap. The Discussion states that the reconstructed tracts had different FA measures and topographies. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, the problem of disentangling complex fibre architecture (Fischer et al., 2012; Jeurissen et al., 2017) helps to explain why the reconstructed cingulum sometimes appears to extend rostrally beyond the limit of the tract (Heilbronner and Haber, 2014), suggesting that streamlines have jumped into adjacent pathways.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Fischer et al., 2012 source
The Discussion says fiber crossings make part of the cingulate bundle less reliably trackable and that probabilistic algorithms are especially suited to detecting crossings. This supports the fibre-architecture difficulty attributed to Fischer et al.; the rostral extent of the tract is cited to a different source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Jeurissen et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Heilbronner and Haber, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results describe the cingulum bundle’s anatomical course and its proximity to the uncinate fasciculus, providing a basis for identifying the tract’s limits. They do not report that reconstructed cingulum streamlines extend rostrally beyond those limits or jump into adjacent pathways; that reconstruction-specific part is unsupported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In contrast, both fornix and anterior thalamic lesions, as well as hippocampal and medial prefrontal lesions (Aggleton et al., 1992, 1995), persistently impair this task.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Aggleton et al., 1992 source
- Partly supportedcites Aggleton et al., 1995 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introduction reports that hippocampal, fornix, and anterior thalamic lesions produce severe deficits on spatial tasks including delayed nonmatching-to-position. The paper also reports fornix and medial prefrontal DNMP deficits when rats were retested about six weeks after surgery (Subjects; Comparisons among animals with medial prefrontal lesions). It does not establish that the hippocampal and anterior thalamic deficits persist, so the claim’s persistence qualifier is not supported for all four lesion types. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Another issue is that the pathways between the hippocampal formation, anterior thalamic nuclei, and retrosplenial cortex might contain sufficient crossed projections to nullify the impact of the disconnection (Mathiasen et al., 2017).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Mathiasen et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Functional considerations; page unavailable) describes crossed projections and suggests that they may contribute to gradual improvement after crossed disconnection lesions. It does not say they are sufficient to nullify the disconnection’s impact; it instead notes that such lesions can substantially disrupt spatial memory. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“One potential example of the latter concerns landmark and head-direction information within retrosplenial cortex (Jacob et al., 2016), which presumably reflect its cingulum connections.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jacob et al., 2016 source
The Abstract (page not provided) reports landmark-influenced head-direction activity in dysgranular retrosplenial cortex, supporting the point immediately preceding the citation. The cingulum-connections explanation follows the citation as the citing authors’ inference, rather than a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Further, evidence that anterior cingulate lesions can decrease social responsiveness and the memory of social stimuli in rats (Rudebeck et al., 2007) points to the likely involvement of the bundle.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rudebeck et al., 2007 source
The Abstract reports that ACC lesions diminished interest in other rats and reduced memory for social stimuli. The Discussion likewise reports reduced social behaviour and impaired use of social information, while the Results (Thirty-min delay condition) document impaired social recognition memory. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“while related studies show how cholinergic activity is intrinsic to 5-CSRTT performance (Dalley et al., 2004).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dalley et al., 2004 source
The Discussion reports that disrupting cholinergic transmission in the rat medial prefrontal cortex produces attentional and executive deficits on the 5-CSRT task. The scopolamine results also show that blocking muscarinic receptors impairs aspects of task performance. Together, these passages support the broad paraphrase that cholinergic activity contributes to performance. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, other studies suggest that anterior cingulate lesions cause monkeys to become more docile and less shy of humans (Anand et al., 1957; Glees et al., 1950; Ward, 1948).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Nonhuman primates (macaque monkeys)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anand et al., 1957
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Glees et al., 1950 source
The Summary reports increased tameness and reduced aggressiveness after anterior cingular lesions in five of seven monkeys. The Behaviour section describes reduced apprehension, including toward humans. The changes were generally temporary, and two monkeys did not show the increased tameness. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ward, 1948 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The advent of computerised tomography and subsequent MR imaging, confirmed that although anterior cingulotomies do compromise the cingulum (Steele et al., 2008; Turner., 1973), they cause additional cortical damage, principally in area 24 (Spangler et al., 1996; Steele et al., 2008).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steele et al., 2008 source
- Supportedcites Turner., 1973 source
Turner is cited for the claim that anterior cingulotomies compromise the cingulum, not for the subsequent claim about cortical damage in area 24. In the “Posterior cingulectomy” section, Turner describes cingulotomy as a destructive lesion in the cingulate bundle. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Spangler et al., 1996 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Related evidence from monkeys performing a Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) again points to a role for the anterior cingulate cortex in representing error likelihoods and adjusting behavioural patterns following an error (Buckley et al., 2009; Kuwabara et al., 2014).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Nonhuman primates (macaque monkeys)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Buckley et al., 2009 source
- Supportedcites Kuwabara et al., 2014 source
The Introduction reports that ACC lesions abolished behavioural modulation by recent response history, including whether the preceding trial was an error, and proposes that ACC represents error likelihood to guide action selection. The Discussion describes error feedback as potentially initiating a shift in response-selection mode. The supplied passages have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In addition, apathy is a well-recognized feature of strokes affecting similar portions of the medial frontal cortex (Kang & Kim, 2008; Le Heron et al., 2018) and the medial and anterior thalamus (Carrera & Bogousslavsky, 2006; Krause et al., 2012; Serra et al., 2013) respectively.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kang & Kim, 2008 source
- Supportedcites Le Heron et al., 2018 source
In the Stroke section, the paper calls the medial frontal cortex the classical cortical location linked to post-stroke apathy. It also reports apathy following infarction of the paramedian or anterior thalamus. The citation to Le Heron et al. is attached specifically to the medial-frontal portion of the citing sentence, which the paper supports. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carrera & Bogousslavsky, 2006 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Both informal reports (Tow and Whitty, 1953; Turner, 1973) and formal assessments (Cohen et al., 1999a,b; Corkin, 1980) often indicate preserved cognition, although transient confusion, disorientation, and memory loss can occur (Dougherty et al., 2003; Sharim and Pouratian, 2016; Whitty and Lewin, 1960).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tow and Whitty, 1953 source
In the ‘Personality Changes After Cingulectomy’ section (page not available), the authors say patients appear normal in conversation, their work performance seems unimpaired, and they found no evidence of impaired recent or remote memory. This supports the informal impression of broadly preserved cognition, although the authors also note some slowing and reduced comprehension. The cited sentence attributes the separate claim about transient confusion and memory loss to other sources, not to Tow and Whitty. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Turner, 1973 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the Posterior cingulectomy section (page unavailable), Turner says anterior cingulectomy appears to have no permanent effect on memory. He also says he could not find a clear account of its effects on mentality or performance, so the paper supports preserved memory but not the broader claim of preserved cognition after anterior cingulotomy. The sentence attributes the transient symptoms to other citations, not Turner. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites Cohen et al., 1999a,b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“They found age-related FA differences in the anterior and posterior but not in the inferior portions of the cingulum whilst RD, AD and MD showed also effects in the inferior portion.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Healthy aging of the cingulum bundle
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Mårtensson et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The retrieved passages contain bibliographic information and keywords, but no Results passage reporting FA, RD, AD, or MD by cingulum portion. Searches for anterior, posterior, and inferior cingulum effects did not locate evidence for the claimed pattern in the indexed copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plaincorrelationaln = 257- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“For example, older versus younger adults exhibited lower FA and AD as well as increased RD in the left subgenual cingulum, but not in the retrosplenial or parahippocampal cingulum (Sibilia et al., 2017).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Healthy aging of the cingulum bundle
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Sibilia et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages available from our copy are bibliographic metadata (labeled Abstract, no page), not study results. Searches for FA, AD, RD, the left subgenual cingulum, and the retrosplenial and parahippocampal cingulum found no passage reporting the claimed comparison, so it cannot be verified from this copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Post-operative reductions in aggression were reported, while memory was thought to be unaffected, although formal assessments were lacking (Turner, 1973).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Turner, 1973 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Posterior cingulectomy section reports reduced chronic aggression after 37 operations and says memory was unaffected. But the paper also says suitable patients underwent psychometric testing before and after surgery, including tests of recent and distant memory. The claim that formal assessments were lacking is therefore not supported. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgeddirectn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, such cingulum associations with episodic memory are not always observed in healthy older individuals (Metzler-Baddeley et al., 2011) nor are they always confined to its parahippocampal subdivision (e.g., Kantarci et al., 2011).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Executive function and memory
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Metzler-Baddeley et al., 2011 source
The Discussion reports no correlations between episodic-memory measures and the parahippocampal cingulum in this study. The study examined 40 healthy older adults, so it supports the claim that such associations are not always observed in that population. The separate claim about associations beyond the parahippocampal subdivision is attributed to Kantarci et al., not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites Kantarci et al., 2011 source
Kantarci et al. is cited for the second clause only. The “Diffusivity and memory domain function” section (page unavailable) reports associations between memory impairment and both anterior and posterior cingulum tract integrity, so the associations were not confined to the parahippocampal subdivision. The “Neuropsychological testing” section identifies delayed-recall measures used for the memory domain. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They found individual FA differences in the dorsal cingulum to contribute independently to all executive functions whilst prefrontal cortex grey matter volume did not independently predict executive performance.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Executive function and memory
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bettcher et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Results §3.4 reports that dorsal cingulum FA independently contributed to both executive-function factors in separate models. But in the final model that also included corpus callosum FA, cingulum FA was independently related only to updating/working memory, not all executive functions. The Discussion confirms that prefrontal grey matter volume did not independently predict executive function after accounting for global atrophy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelationaln = 202- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They found FA differences in the anterior cingulum to correlate with differences in attention/executive and memory performance, while FA in the posterior dorsal cingulum appeared to contribute to all four cognitive domains.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Executive function and memory
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kantarci et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The attention/executive results and Table 2 report correlations between anterior cingulum FA and both attention/executive and memory performance. The Abstract and Figure 1 passage report that posterior cingulum FA was associated with all four cognitive domains. The paper does not identify that posterior cingulum measurement as dorsal; its reference to a dorsal component concerns the superior longitudinal fasciculus. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedcorrelationaln = 220- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“In the posterior cingulum, FA reached a maximum in early adulthood up to the age of 40 and then declined, whilst RD was lowest at midlife and increased thereafter with age.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Healthy aging of the cingulum bundle
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Mårtensson et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available passages labelled Abstract contain bibliographic details and keywords, including cingulum and fractional anisotropy, but no results describing their age trajectories. Searches for posterior cingulum, FA, RD, and the age-40 peak found no passage in our copy that verifies the claimed pattern. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plaincorrelationaln = 257- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Only a minority of these familial studies find cingulum changes, with other structures more often affected (e.g., Clark et al., 2011; Hoptman et al., 2008; Karlsgodt et al., 2009; Maniega et al., 2008).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Clark et al., 2011 source
The Results (Genetic liability effects; page unavailable) identify changes in unaffected first-degree relatives in the IFO, ILF and left tSLF—tracts other than the cingulum. Clark et al. is cited as an example among several studies, and its findings support that use. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hoptman et al., 2008 source
- Partly supportedcites Karlsgodt et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Participants; Data Analysis) describe an ultra-high-risk group defined by prodromal criteria, not a specifically familial high-risk sample, and include the cingulate bundle among the regions examined. The Results (Analysis I) find reduced FA in the superior longitudinal fasciculus but no significant difference in the other regions. This supports the paper as an example of a non-cingulum finding, but it does not establish that only a minority of familial studies find cingulum changes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“while cingulum abnormalities are most often seen near the genu, they may also occur in the parahippocampal cingulum (e.g. Whitford et al., 2014).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Whitford et al., 2014 source
Whitford et al. is cited as an example of abnormalities occurring in the parahippocampal cingulum. The Discussion reports abnormal fibers connecting the cingulate isthmus with the parahippocampal cortex in patients with schizophrenia; the citation need not establish the separate claim about where abnormalities are most often seen. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Studies relating the severity of ADHD symptoms with dMRI indices (Angriman et al., 2014) reveal that clinical symptoms and executive dysfunctions correlate best with the status of fronto-striatal tracts, while cingulum bundle changes are less reliable.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Angriman et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Key points and Starting Point sections report correlations between ADHD symptom severity, executive functioning, and fronto-striatal tract integrity. The Starting Point section reports reduced fractional anisotropy in fronto-striatal tracts but not mid-cingulum bundles; it also reports an association between cingulum integrity and reaction-time variability. The paper does not establish that fronto-striatal correlations are the strongest or that cingulum changes are generally less reliable. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is evidence that tract volume changes are most frequent in the left hemisphere, while the dMRI changes occur in the dorsal cingulum (e.g., Sanjuan et al., 2013).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Post-Traumatic stress disorder
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Sanjuan et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (section 4) reports DTI differences in both the left and right dorsal cingulum, supporting the dMRI portion. The Methods (section 2.2) describe measurements of diffusion metrics using the same regional volume across subjects; they do not support a claim that tract-volume changes are most frequent in the left hemisphere. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“It is, of course, most likely that some processes, such as pain and emotion (Shackman et al., 2011), or motor control and aspects of attention (Paus, 2001) will overlap given their close relationships with one another.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Shackman et al., 2011 source
Shackman et al. are cited for the pain-and-emotion overlap, not the motor-control-and-attention example. In “Evidence of functional convergence” (page not supplied), the paper reports overlapping aMCC activation for pain and negative affect, supporting that attribution. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Paus, 2001 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“the presumption that such cingulotomies will disconnect many anterior thalamic efferents (Heilbronner and Haber, 2014)”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Heilbronner and Haber, 2014 source
The Neurotherapeutic target placement section says the modeled cingulotomy lesion will ablate the investigated fiber types and lies in a location containing AV/LD thalamic fibers. The AV/LD thalamus section identifies these as projections from the anterior thalamic nuclei. This supports the citing sentence’s presumption of disconnection, rather than documenting disconnection measured after surgery. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our literature review reveals much heterogeneity in cingulum reconstructions across different studies.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, bilateral fornix lesions severely disrupted both tasks.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither cingulum bundle nor cingulate cortex lesions have any apparent effect on this task.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Selective cingulum bundle lesions have not been investigated in nonhuman primates.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Nonhuman primates (macaque monkeys)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further distinctions include the anterior (close to the genu) and posterior (close to the splenium) cingulum.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, many of the cortico-cortical connections are not only light, but other components link directly across the cortex, i.e., do not join the bundle.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like the rat, the monkey cingulum contains many short projection fibres but, in comparison, it innervates more cortical areas.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the rat cingulum bundle principally provides subcortical connections for cortical regions close to the midline, i.e., with medial frontal, cingulate and parahippocampal cortices, as well as interlinking these same cortical areas.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is, however, clear from Fig. 5 that no single site dominates the tract, as its component connections shift along the length of the bundle.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, that part of the bundle above the corpus callosum largely consists of thalamic connections with the cingulate cortices, as well as ascending cholinergic, noradrenergic and serotonergic projections.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, as in the rat, the cingulum connections include noradrenergic, serotonergic, and cholinergic fibres.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While DTI based tractography (Basser et al., 2000) has been widely applied, it has difficulties in resolving fibre tracking in areas with mixed fibre orientations due to, for instance, intra-voxel fibre crossing (Jones and Cercignani, 2010; Jeurissen et al., 2017).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Having said this, DTI metrics are known to be sensitive indices of white matter microstructural changes and the in vivo investigation of the cingulum bundle in humans is predominately based on DTI techniques.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, there is clearly need for a consensus on how best to subdivide the cingulum in dMRI research.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Whilst these methods can improve fibre tracking (Jeurissen et al., 2017), it is worth remembering that current shortcomings of dMRI tractography also include an inability to determine the direction of white matter (afferent or efferent), a limitation that is highly problematic for studies of the cingulum bundle.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jeurissen et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Given the length and complexity of the cingulum bundle (Fig. 5, Fig. 6) it is to be expected that finer detailed tract subdivisions might provide even better correspondence with potential functional changes.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fig. 6
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This cortical relationship was clarified by Beevor (1891) who realised that fibres continuously join and leave the cingulum, emphasising its affinity with the cingulate gyrus.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Beevor, 1891
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These differences, which suggest qualitative changes along the length of the tract, add support to similar tract subdivisions used in other dMRI studies (e.g., Concha et al., 2005; Kates et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2014; Metzler-Baddeley et al., 2017).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Structure & connections > Connections
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Concha et al., 2005
- Not matchedcites Kates et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lin et al., 2014 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While this concern is difficult to disprove, a complex disconnection procedure (Dumont et al., 2010) found evidence that anterior thalamic lesions and retrosplenial cortex lesions have additive effects, implying different contributions to hippocampal function.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dumont et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This difference reveals the relative importance of those anterior thalamic connections that avoid the cingulum bundle, e.g., its inputs from the hippocampal region, the mammillary bodies, and frontal cortices, while also signifying how these thalamic nuclei are a key point of convergence for spatial processing (Bubb et al., 2017).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bubb et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern presumably reflects how cortical fibres join and leave the tract along its length.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of a disconnection effect indicates that information in the cingulum bundle either duplicates or is qualitatively different from that in the fornix.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Rodent studies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the presumed disconnections caused by the various surgeries, the impact on social behaviour, emotion, memory, and executive control is often slight, implying that damage more confined to the bundle might be even less disruptive.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Nonhuman primates (macaque monkeys)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In nonhuman primate studies, surgical lesions in adjacent cingulate areas consistently involved the cingulum bundle unless otherwise stated.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Patients are reported as continuing to experience pain but to perceive it as less distressing or less worrying (Foltz and White, 1962; Corkin and Hebben, 1981)”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In other reports, delayed alternation was spared, even though the anterior cingulate gyrus lesions again consistently involved the cingulum bundle (Rushworth et al., 2003).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Nonhuman primates (macaque monkeys)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rushworth et al., 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This retention deficit is informative as both anterior thalamic nuclei and fornix lesions impair the initial learning of these same problems (Gaffan, 1994; Parker and Gaffan, 1997).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Nonhuman primates (macaque monkeys)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gaffan, 1994 source
- Not matchedcites Parker and Gaffan, 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“yet both tasks are hippocampal sensitive (Gaffan, 1994; Murray et al., 1989).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Nonhuman primates (macaque monkeys)
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As no lasting benefits occurred (Corkin, 1980), cingulotomy for psychotic patients was generally abandoned (Ballantine et al., 1967).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Corkin, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ballantine et al., 1967 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Difficulties in interpreting this clinical literature include the lack of formal post-operative assessments in early studies, the frequent absence of appropriate controls, and the failure to test blind to surgical treatment.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Frontal-type deficits have also been seen in a Stroop Interference task, with borderline deficits on a Go/No-Go executive task (Cohen et al., 1999b).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen et al., 1999b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It is notable that spontaneous response initiation and generation were both reduced in a study of 12 cingulotomy patients when tested over a year post-surgery (Cohen et al., 1999b).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen et al., 1999b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, OCD sufferers after cingulotomy showed poorer WCST performance on several measures (Kim et al., 2003; but see Corkin, 1980, Cohen et al., 1999b), consistent with a loss of executive control.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim et al., 2003 source
- Not matchedcites Corkin, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Cohen et al., 1999b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these observations point to an involvement of the anterior cingulate/cingulum area in high-level processing and selection, though the lack of consistent deficits points to contributions from other pathways.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, while stimulation of the left cingulum bundle in five patients disrupted a verbal working memory task, subsequent cingulotomy for pain relief did not affect levels of performance (Fedio and Ommaya, 1970).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fedio and Ommaya, 1970 source
plaindirectn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other evidence points, however, to post-surgical deficits in focused and sustained attention, as well as mild changes in executive function (Cohen et al., 1999a,b).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cohen et al., 1999a,b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The same study (Steele et al., 2008) also found no deficits on the Trail Making Test, which taxes visual attention and task switching, although borderline deficits had previously been reported in a larger cohort of 18 cases (Cohen et al., 1999b).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steele et al., 2008 source
- Not matchedcites Cohen et al., 1999b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, it is the apparent lack of more overt cognitive changes after anterior cingulotomy that is often most striking, a finding that echoes the earlier review of monkey research (Section 3.2).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Functional analyses of the cingulum bundle – lesion analyses > Humans - cingulotomy
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A number of studies suggest that aging does not affect the cingulum uniformly but that region-specific effects can be observed.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Healthy aging of the cingulum bundle
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, while there is an overall shift from genual parts of the cingulum (executive function) to parahippocampal parts (memory), this shift appears to be gradual in nature and the latter association appears more robust in some clinical populations.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Executive function and memory
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The commonest reported changes are reduced FA and increased diffusivity, both of which are though to reflect a disruption of white matter integrity.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Introduction
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Reductions in FA and increases in diffusivity reflect a loss of white matter integrity.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This study reported reduced FA in the parahippocampal cingulum in both MCI and Alzheimer’s patients, with additional FA changes in the posterior retrosplenial cingulum in the Alzheimer’s group (Choo et al., 2010; see also Ito et al., 2015).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD)
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Studies that employed ROI analysis, including tractography, showed consistent reductions in FA and increases in MD in the fornix, the parahippocampal cingulum, and the uncinate fasciculus, whilst whole brain analysis study based on TBSS or VBA demonstrated significant FA reductions in the posterior corona radiata.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yu et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the cingulum is not uniquely affected in schizophrenia, but is part of a wider network of disrupted pathways.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“differences between patients and controls may be overestimated and could potentially reflect atrophy rather than intrinsic white matter microstructural changes.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Chiang et al. (2016) reported lower cingulum FA in ADHD that correlated with inattention”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chiang et al. (2016) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, Nenadic et al. (2017) found evidence of increased radial diffusivity in the cingulum in schizophrenia but not bipolar disorder.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Overview of psychiatric conditions and the cingulum bundle
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nenadic et al. (2017) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cingulum dMRI changes, which appear most consistently in OCD, ASD and PTSD, are concentrated in the dorsal cingulum (Table 2).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Overview of psychiatric conditions and the cingulum bundle
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“dMRI data reveal overlapping patterns of fronto–cortical and fronto-limbic changes across a variety of disorders, with cingulum alterations a frequent component (Table 2).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Overview of psychiatric conditions and the cingulum bundle
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while also showing that FA can increase as well as decrease in this condition.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Post-Traumatic stress disorder
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In bipolar disorders, abnormalities in interhemispheric and posterior limbic connectivity appeared more prominent, while schizophrenia was more linked with frontotemporal changes (O’Donoghue et al., 2017).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Overview of psychiatric conditions and the cingulum bundle
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites O’Donoghue et al., 2017 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“even though the latter task is regarded as a behavioural test of episodic memory (Gaffan, 1994).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gaffan, 1994 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At present, dMRI reconstructions fail to distinguish short association fibres, while also failing to identify the direction of a pathway.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, cingulate projections to subcortical sites more typically cross the bundle and, hence, are less easy to detect.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While most clinical studies that report a change in the cingulum, find increased diffusion associated with reduced FA, the opposite is sometimes found, e.g., in PTSD and ADHD.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Diffusion MRI (dMRI) studies of the human cingulum bundle > Overview of psychiatric conditions and the cingulum bundle
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This outcome is to be expected as both retrosplenial damage and hippocampal damage can cause anterograde amnesia (Spiers et al., 2001; Valenstein et al., 1987; Vann et al., 2009)”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present review reveals a remarkable contrast: dMRI indices reveal an array of correlations with cognitive functions, which differ along the main axis of the pathway, yet lesion studies with nonhuman primates and clinical descriptions of cingulotomies typically fail to report robust changes in these same attributes.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“the anterior thalamic nuclei are seen as critical components of the pathology responsible for diencephalic amnesia (Aggleton and Brown, 1999; Carlesimo et al., 2011).”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Furthermore, current cingulum subdivisions are based on the long axis of the bundle (Fig. 6). Although clearly better than treating the tract as a single entity, this approach still fails to isolate specific connections.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 6
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One explanation for this array of dMRI effects stems from the wide range of connections within the cingulum.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the position of the parahippocampal cingulum with respect to the adjacent angular bundle leaves concern about reconstructed fibre traces jumping pathways.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the normal significance of the parahippocampal cingulum for memory remains largely unknown.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While many of the psychiatric conditions, as well as healthy aging, appear to be more related to changes in anterior parts of the bundle, neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease appear linked with parahippocampal regions.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One barrier to research in this area has been the inconsistent array of cingulum subdivisions used in dMRI studies and the associated inconsistent terminology.”
§ The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction > Conclusions and future directions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Attempts to integrate anatomical and functional knowledge about the cingulum tract remain rare.
“Nevertheless, attempts to integrate anatomical and functional knowledge about this tract remain rare, yet this integration is needed to understand this highly complex pathway.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The set of subcortical–cortical connections that appear to dominate the rat cingulum bundle are duplicated in the primate brain, including humans.
“There seems every reason to believe that the set of subcortical – cortical connections, which appear to dominate the rat cingulum bundle, are duplicated in the primate brain, including humans.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In nonhuman primate studies, surgical lesions in adjacent cingulate areas consistently involved the cingulum bundle unless otherwise stated.
“It can be assumed that, unless otherwise stated, these surgeries consistently involved the bundle.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The Papez circuit is vital for normal cognition.
“which is assumed to be vital for normal cognition (Aggleton and Brown, 1999; Rolls, 2015).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reductions in FA and increases in diffusivity reflect a loss of white matter integrity.
“The commonest reported changes are reduced FA and increased diffusivity, both of which are though to reflect a disruption of white matter integrity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Amnestic MCI is often considered a prodromal condition for AD.
“Amnestic MCI is often considered a prodromal condition for AD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Both schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders are seen as developmental in origin with overlapping features.
“Both schizophrenia and ASDS are seen as developmental in origin with overlapping features.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In none of the clinical conditions described is pathology restricted to the cingulum bundle.
“It must also be remembered that in none of the clinical conditions described is pathology restricted to the cingulum bundle.”
Citations
Cites
Selective Cortical Undercutting As a Means of Modifying and Studying Frontal Lobe Function in Man
Scoville, W. B. (1949) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/jns.1949.6.1.0065 · Cited by 7,374
Tract-based spatial statistics: Voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data
Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Johansen‐Berg, H., Rueckert, D., Nichols, T. E., Mackay, C. E., Watkins, K. E., Ciccarelli, O., Cader, M. Z., Matthews, P. M., et al. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.024 · Cited by 6,598 · cited 4×
“In addition, dMRI allows the reconstruction of white matter bundles by means of fibre tractography (Basser et al., 2000; Tournier et al., 2004; Jeurissen et al., 2011, 2017) or, alternatively, the reconstruction of a white matter skeleton from voxels that exceed a predefined FA threshold with tract based spatial stati…”
InfluentialBasser, P. J., & Pierpaoli, C. (1996) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series B · doi:10.1006/jmrb.1996.0086 · Cited by 4,306 · cited 14×
“While DTI based tractography (Basser et al., 2000) has been widely applied, it has difficulties in resolving fibre tracking in areas with mixed fibre orientations due to, for instance, intra-voxel fibre crossing (Jones and Cercignani, 2010; Jeurissen et al., 2017).”
InfluentialEstimation of the Effective Self-Diffusion Tensor from the NMR Spin Echo
Basser, P. J., Mattiello, J., & Bihan, D. L. (1994) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Series B · doi:10.1006/jmrb.1994.1037 · Cited by 3,656 · cited 13×
“While DTI based tractography (Basser et al., 2000) has been widely applied, it has difficulties in resolving fibre tracking in areas with mixed fibre orientations due to, for instance, intra-voxel fibre crossing (Jones and Cercignani, 2010; Jeurissen et al., 2017).”
InfluentialA PROPOSED MECHANISM OF EMOTION
PAPEZ, J. W. (1937) · Archives of Neurology And Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1937.02260220069003 · Cited by 3,563 · cited 2×
“Schematic diagram of Papez circuit (Papez, 1937), showing the central”
Bardo, M. T., & Hammer, R. P. (1991) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/0306-4522(91)90226-e · Cited by 3,229
Toward a quantitative assessment of diffusion anisotropy
Pierpaoli, C. M., & Basser, P. J. (1996) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1910360612 · Cited by 2,392 · cited 2×
“Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) (Basser et al., 1994; Basser and Pierpaoli, 1996) has been the most influential dMRI method.”
Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition
Blakemore, S., & Choudhury, S. (2006) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x · Cited by 2,328 · cited 1×
“An example of the former would be the ways in which cingulum bundle changes contribute to the shifting landscape of adolescence (Blakemore and Choudhury, 2006), while remembering the complex issue of distinguishing cause from effect.”
Tournier, J., Calamante, F., & Connelly, A. (2007) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.016 · Cited by 2,191
Resting-State Functional Connectivity Reflects Structural Connectivity in the Default Mode Network
Greicius, M. D., Supekar, K., Menon, V., & Dougherty, R. F. (2009) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn059 · Cited by 2,175
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Reil, 1809, Untersuchungen über den Bau des grossen Gehirns im Menschen, Arch. Physiol., 9, 136
- Schmahmann, 2006, Oxford; OUP
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Herbet, G., & Duffau, H. (2020) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00033.2019 · Cited by 321
Structure–function coupling in macroscale human brain networks
Fotiadis, P., Parkes, L., Davis, K. A., Satterthwaite, T. D., Shinohara, R. T., & Bassett, D. S. (2024) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00846-6 · Cited by 280
Deconstructing the Posterior Medial Episodic Network
Ritchey, M., & Cooper, R. A. (2020) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.03.006 · Cited by 236
Pando‐Naude, V., Toxto, S., Fernandez‐Lozano, S., Parsons, C. E., Alcauter, S., & Garza‐Villarreal, E. A. (2021) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-020-01128-2 · Cited by 195
MRI findings in posttraumatic stress disorder
Kunimatsu, A., Yasaka, K., Akai, H., Kunimatsu, N., & Abe, O. (2019) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.26929 · Cited by 173
“The cingulum bundle, closely lying behind the corpus callosum, interconnects the frontal, parietal, and medial temporal sites while also linking the subcortical nuclei to the cingulate gyrus.(60) According to a recent DTI study,(61) the posterior cingulum tract may be associated with multiple cognitive domain function…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Bubb, E. J., Metzler-Baddeley, C., & Aggleton, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Aggleton, John P.
- ORCID
- Aggleton, John P.
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 92
- Pages
- 104-127
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6090091
- OpenAlex
- W2804164821
- Semantic Scholar
- be9c1248e636da000e14d95a1fce664a604cf308
- Cited by
- 740
- References
- 353
- Citations by year
- 2026: 69 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 113 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 38.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (103722/Z14/Z)
- BBSRC (L021005/1)
- Alzheimer’s Society and BRACE research fellowship (208/506818)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- cingulum, white matter tracts, cingulate cortex, executive function, emotions, pain, episodic memory, schizophrenia, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain Injuries, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Nerve Fibers, Myelinated, Neuropsychological Tests, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-18, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-18 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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