Cited by 52Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Linking cortical circuit models to human cognition with laminar fMRI

Open access
Yang, Jiajia, Huber, Laurentius, Yu, Yinghua, Bandettini, Peter A.·2021·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Laboratory animal research has provided significant knowledge into the function of cortical circuits at the laminar level, which has yet to be fully leveraged towards insights about human brain function on a similar spatiotemporal scale. The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in conjunction with neural models provides new opportunities to gain important insights from current knowledge. During the last five years, human studies have demonstrated the value of high-resolution fMRI to study laminar-specific activity in the human brain. This is mostly performed at ultra-high-field strengths (≥ 7 T) and is known as laminar fMRI. Advancements in laminar fMRI are beginning to open new possibilities for studying questions in basic cognitive neuroscience. In this paper, we first review recent methodological advances in laminar fMRI and describe recent human laminar fMRI studies. Then, we discuss how the use of laminar fMRI can help bridge the gap between cortical circuit models and human cognition.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.07.005

Cites

167 of 167 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some aspects of these circuit-level theories can be tested in people with modern methods such as laminar MEG, high-field MRI, biophysical modeling, and invasive recordings from neurosurgical patients.

    “Here, we argue that certain aspects of such circuit-level theories can be tested in humans (where consciousness is easiest to query) using state-of-the-art methods including laminar MEG [20], high-field MRI [21–23], biophysical modeling [24], and invasive recordings in human neurosurgical patients [25,26].”

    From Testing circuit-level theories of consciousness in humans (2026) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Huber L, Goense J, Kennerley AJ, Trampel R, Guidi M, Reimer E, Ivanov D, Neef N, Gauthier CJ, Turner R, Möller HE, 2015b. Cortical lamina-dependent blood volume changes in human brain at 7T. Neuroimage 107, 23– 33. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.046 25479018 · DOI
  2. Huber L, Ivanov D, Handwerker DA, Marrett S, Guidi M, Uludağ K, Bandettini PA, Poser BA, 2018b. Techniques for blood volume fMRI with VASO: From low-resolution mapping towards sub-millimeter layer-dependent applications. Neuroimage 164, 131– 143. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.11.039 27867088 PMC5436958 · DOI
  3. Palomero-Gallagher N, Zilles K, 2017. Cortical layers: Cyto-, myelo-, receptor- and synaptic architecture in human cortical areas. Neuroimage 1– 26. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.035 28811255 · DOI
  4. Self MW, van Kerkoerle T, Goebel R, Roelfsema PR, 2019b. Benchmarking laminar fMRI: Neuronal spiking and synaptic activity during top-down and bottom-up processing in the different layers of cortex. Neuroimage 197, 806– 817. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.045 28648888 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, J., Huber, L., Yu, Y., & Bandettini, P. A.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Yang, Jiajia
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
128
Pages
467-478
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3180740974
Cited by
52
References
167
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
  • Okayama University Scientific Achievement Repository (Okayama University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP18K15339, JP20K07722)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JPMJFR2041)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
laminar fMRI, cortical circuits, ultra-high field fMRI, neural circuit model, human cognition, high-resolution fMRI, cognitive neuroscience
MeSH terms
Cognitive Neuroscience, Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review