Cited by 131Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Computational and dynamic models in neuroimaging

Open access
Friston, Karl J., Dolan, Raymond J.·2010·NeuroImage

Abstract

This article reviews the substantial impact computational neuroscience has had on neuroimaging over the past years. It builds on the distinction between models of the brain as a computational machine and computational models of neuronal dynamics per se; i.e., models of brain function and biophysics. Both sorts of model borrow heavily from computational neuroscience, and both have enriched the analysis of neuroimaging data and the type of questions we address. To illustrate the role of functional models in imaging neuroscience, we focus on optimal control and decision (game) theory; the models used here provide a mechanistic account of neuronal computations and the latent (mental) states represent by the brain. In terms of biophysical modelling, we focus on dynamic causal modelling, with a special emphasis on recent advances in neural-mass models for hemodynamic and electrophysiological time series. Each example emphasises the role of generative models, which embed our hypotheses or questions, and the importance of model comparison (i.e., hypothesis testing). We will refer to this theme, when trying to contextualise recent trends in relation to each other.

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.neuroimage.2009.12.068

Cites

156 of 156 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?

  • MMN is widely considered a robust marker of psychosis, thought to reflect an attempt to minimize prediction error and capture its disruption.

    “MMN is widely considered to be a robust marker of psychosis15, thought to reflect an attempt to minimize this prediction error and capture its disruption16–19.”

    From Deviations in effective connectivity explain different hallucination subtypes in Parkinson's disease psychosis (2026) · cites this paper as [16]

    The section “Forward and backward connections in the brain” (page unavailable) links repetition suppression that might explain MMN to predictive coding; the Discussion describes suppression of sensory prediction error. These passages support the proposed mechanism, but they do not say that MMN captures disruption of prediction-error minimization. The psychosis-marker statement has a separate citation in the citing sentence and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friston, K. J., & Dolan, R. J.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Friston, Karl J.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
752-765
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012993788
Cited by
131
References
156
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (088130)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
computational neuroscience, neuroimaging, optimal control, decision theory, dynamic causal modeling, neural mass model, generative models, model comparison, hypothesis testing, neural dynamics
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Game Theory, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Models, Theoretical

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