Cited by 1,529Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Function in the human connectome: task-fMRI and individual differences in behavior

Open access
Barch, Deanna M., Burgess, Gregory C., Harms, Michael P., Petersen, Steven E., Schlaggar, Bradley L., Corbetta, Maurizio, Glasser, Matthew F., Curtiss, Sandra +12 more·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

The primary goal of the Human Connectome Project (HCP) is to delineate the typical patterns of structural and functional connectivity in the healthy adult human brain. However, we know that there are important individual differences in such patterns of connectivity, with evidence that this variability is associated with alterations in important cognitive and behavioral variables that affect real world function. The HCP data will be a critical stepping-off point for future studies that will examine how variation in human structural and functional connectivity play a role in adult and pediatric neurological and psychiatric disorders that account for a huge amount of public health resources. Thus, the HCP is collecting behavioral measures of a range of motor, sensory, cognitive and emotional processes that will delineate a core set of functions relevant to understanding the relationship between brain connectivity and human behavior. In addition, the HCP is using task-fMRI (tfMRI) to help delineate the relationships between individual differences in the neurobiological substrates of mental processing and both functional and structural connectivity, as well as to help characterize and validate the connectivity analyses to be conducted on the structural and functional connectivity data. This paper describes the logic and rationale behind the development of the behavioral, individual difference, and tfMRI batteries and provides preliminary data on the patterns of activation associated with each of the fMRI tasks, at both group and individual levels.

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.2013.05.033

Cites

155 of 155 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?

  • HCP fMRI data include robust task activations and resting-state networks.

    “Although not emphasized in the present article, the HCP data do include robust task activations and resting-state networks from the fMRI data (Barch et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2013).”

    From The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview (2013) · cites this paper as Barch et al., 2013

  • Global efficiency cannot be computed from networks with negative weights.

    “As global efficiency (Equation 5) cannot be computed from networks with negative weights (Barch et al., 2013), we first thresholded the connectivity matrix within each window to include only positive edge weights before calculating global efficiency on the remaining connected component.”

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: 1

  1. Manuck SB Brown SM Forbes EE Hariri AR 2007b Temporal stability of individual differences in amygdala reactivity The American journal of psychiatry 164 1613 1614 17898358

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barch, D. M., Burgess, G. C., Harms, M. P., Petersen, S. E., Schlaggar, B. L., Corbetta, M., Glasser, M. F., Curtiss, S., Dixit, S., Feldt, C., Nolan, D., Bryant, E., Hartley, T., Footer, O., Bjork, J. M., Poldrack, R., Smith, S., Johansen-Berg, H., Snyder, A. Z., & Van Essen, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Barch, Deanna M.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
80
Pages
169-189
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2071608556
Cited by
1,529
References
155
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 142 · 2024: 165 · 2023: 153 · 2022: 160 · 2021: 174 · 2020: 153 · 2019: 156 · 2018: 122 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 6
FWCI
17.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UniTERAMO Research Catalog (University of Teramo) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (090955, 098369)
  • National Institutes of Health (5u54mh091657-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U54-MH091657, F30MH097312)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
Human Connectome Project, task-based fMRI, individual differences, functional connectivity, structural connectivity, brain-behavior relationship, behavioral measures, neuroimaging validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior, Brain, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Anatomic, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Task Performance and Analysis, Young Adult, Connectome

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