The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 66 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview
Open accessAbstract
The Human Connectome Project consortium led by Washington University, University of Minnesota, and Oxford University is undertaking a systematic effort to map macroscopic human brain circuits and their relationship to behavior in a large population of healthy adults. This overview article focuses on progress made during the first half of the 5-year project in refining the methods for data acquisition and analysis. Preliminary analyses based on a finalized set of acquisition and preprocessing protocols demonstrate the exceptionally high quality of the data from each modality. The first quarterly release of imaging and behavioral data via the ConnectomeDB database demonstrates the commitment to making HCP datasets freely accessible. Altogether, the progress to date provides grounds for optimism that the HCP datasets and associated methods and software will become increasingly valuable resources for characterizing human brain connectivity and function, their relationship to behavior, and their heritability and genetic underpinnings.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
42 Not checked yet · 31 No basis given · 26 Own interpretation · 26 Own result · 7 Own method
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
“A four-question satisfaction survey administered at the end of testing shows that participants report a very high level of satisfaction with their experiences.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
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.
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 general, the participants studied to date (through April, 2013) have tolerated the entire experience very well, including the extended time in a customized scanner with a reduced bore diameter (see below).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
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.
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
“Relative to a standard commercial Skyra, the customized hardware includes a gradient coil and gradient power amplifiers that together increase the maximum gradient strength from 40 mT/m to 100 mT/m on the WU-Minn 3T.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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.
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
“Many practical issues have been resolved to allow recruitment and visits to occur at a pace sufficient to study 1200 subjects over 3 years at a single imaging site, as discussed below.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS
plaindirectn = 1,200- 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.
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
“Preliminary analyses based on a finalized set of acquisition and preprocessing protocols demonstrate the exceptionally high quality of the data from each modality.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > Abstract
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.
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
“To date, no participants who have passed the initial telephone screening have been subsequently excluded during the SSAGA.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
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.
In the paper
“A two-year effort to develop and refine the scanning protocols for the 3T Connectome Scanner has yielded important advances in each of the four MR-based imaging modalities (Ugurbil et al., 2013).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ugurbil et al., 2013 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.
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
“The majority of participants rate their experience as a 9 or 10 (out of 10) overall (Supplemental Table S4).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
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.
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
“Complete or near-complete scans for all modalities were obtained from 68 of these subjects (see Supplemental Table S3).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
plainn = 68- 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.
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
“As a consequence, all scans have gradient distortions larger than in a conventional scanner.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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. 42
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
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
“Reasons for partial or complete loss of imaging data include claustrophobia and physical size (body or head).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
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.
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
“On average, approximately 6–7 families are screened in order to identify one family with a twin pair and at least one other sibling who meet all inclusion criteria and are willing to participate.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
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
“The Q1 data release includes data from 76 subjects who visited through November, 2012.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
plainn = 76- 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
“An average of 2.6 subjects per family completed visits in Q1.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subject recruitment, visits, and behavioral testing
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
“This sharing includes the release in March 2013 of data from 68 subjects scanned during the first quarter (Q1) of Phase II data collection.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > INTRODUCTION
plainn = 68- 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 the absence of a custom designed patient table, this smaller bore necessitated the placement of the patient table higher in the bore, resulting in the subject’s head not being centered along the gradient isocenter.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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 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
“Placing the customized 100 mT/m gradient set into the Siemens 3T Skyra system resulted in a clear inner bore diameter of 56 cm, smaller than the standard Siemens 3T Skyra bore size (70 cm diameter) or a Siemens Trio 3T Trio (60 cm diameter);”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Major improvements to the standard reconstruction process have been made in order to improve the data quality (especially for dMRI, Sotiropoulos et al. 2013c) and to reduce the reconstruction time for the very large HCP datasets (Ugurbil et al., 2013).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sotiropoulos et al. 2013c
- Not checked yetcites Ugurbil et al., 2013 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 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
“Some of the refinements have already been incorporated into the latest versions of FSL, FreeSurfer, and Connectome Workbench, three major software packages used by the HCP pipelines.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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.
In the paper
“Despite the success of the above cleanup process for structured artifacts, spatially more global artifacts can remain in the data. This may include motion artifacts (Power et al., 2012) that are not fully removed by the above processing steps, and which may artifactually influence correlation-based estimates of functional connectivity.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Power et al., 2012
hedgedconditional- 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 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
“ICA Component 7 includes the central visual field representation of V1 and V2, whereas component 3 mainly involves the peripheral visual field representation of these two areas.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
plainn = 20- 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
“A dense connectome is the full (voxels X voxels) or (grayordinates X grayordinates) correlation matrix obtained by correlating the timeseries of every brain voxel or every grayordinate with every other. These matrices are massive (190GB and 32GB respectively)”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These efforts are still in early stages of development and must cope with two fundamental challenges: (i) the strength, or sharpness of transitions in functional connectivity vary widely and can be influenced by noise and biases in individual subjects; and (ii) the fidelity of inter-subject alignment using shape-based surface registration methods is imperfect in regions of high folding variability”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Essen et al., 2012b
- Not checked yetcites Robinson et al., 2013
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.
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
“Both approaches indicated excellent quality data from these paradigms, with clear group level activation as well as robust activation within individual subjects in many of the paradigms and contrasts.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
boostedn = 20- 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
“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).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subcortical signals
What the sources say
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The top row shows the group-average task activation from the right-hand hand movement task, analyzed for the same group of 20 unrelated subjects shown in preceding figures. It includes activation in the expected location in left motor cortex (left panel), and also at two distinct locations in dorsal and ventral cerebellum matching published reports (Buckner et al., 2011).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Cross-modal comparisons
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buckner et al., 2011 source
plainn = 20- 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
“At the time this article was submitted, the WU-Minn HCP is at the midway point of the 5-year grant.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
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
“Nonetheless, the achievements to date are considerable, and the project remains on track relative to its original ambitious schedule.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Some lessons learned
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.
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
“Some of the advances, such as the decision to use multiband imaging, have had a large impact on their own.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Some lessons learned
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: 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.
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
“This applies to the extensive efforts to refine pulse sequences, image reconstruction algorithms, and also to the preprocessing and analysis pipelines.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Some lessons learned
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. 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
“A number of these refinements have already been incorporated into other analysis platforms, including FSL, FreeSurfer, and Connectome Workbench, so that the benefits extend well outside the HCP proper.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Some lessons learned
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.
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
“This reflects dedicated efforts and hard work by a large team that currently includes more than 100 investigators and technical staff from ten institutions in the consortium (Supplemental Table S5).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Some lessons learned
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
“The Q1 data release constitutes only ~6% of the target number of 1200 subjects.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
plainn = 1,200- 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
“The companion articles in this special issue report many encouraging preliminary results as well as methodological advances, but not surprisingly they do not yet report major neuroscientific discoveries.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
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. 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
“Moreover, the more advanced stages of data analysis that are essential for characterizing structural and functional connectivity are still being refined and optimized.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
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
“At 2 mm resolution the covariance matrix contains ~8 × 109 (90,0002) elements, or ~4 × 1010 information bits if there are 2 bits per element”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Including additional (non-twin) siblings provides a further increase in statistical power for analyzing heritability, distinguishing between genetic and environmental influences (Posthuma and Boomsma, 2000; Van Essen et al., 2012a) and relating genotype to phenotype.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP OBJECTIVES > Subjects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Posthuma and Boomsma, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Van Essen et al., 2012a
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 1200 subjects is small relative to many GWAS studies, the statistical power gained by studying twins and their siblings should nonetheless enable valuable exploratory genome-wide analyses of how specific genes, interacting genes, and genetic regulatory sequences may influence brain connectivity.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP OBJECTIVES > Subjects
plainconditionaln = 1,200- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Many features of brain circuitry and behavior probably arise from small effects of many genes rather than from a few dominant genes.
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
“The 16 bit DICOMs allow for an extended dynamic range of signal intensity values, which is advantageous with such multi-channel receiver arrays where signal intensity variations can be quite large.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This efficiency increase can lead to substantially improved functional SNR (Feinberg et al., 2010; (Smith et al., 2011), the ability to acquire more diffusion data points (Sotiropoulos et al., 2013c), and/or increases in spatial resolution for fMRI or dMRI (Ugurbil et al. 2013).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The optimal multiband factor and other pulse sequence parameters depend on a complex set of trade-offs that entailed extensive piloting and analysis (Ugurbil et al., 2013; Smith et al. 2013; Sotiropoulos et al., 2013c).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
What the sources say
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.
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
“However, prospective motion correction is not part of our 3T HCP acquisition protocol because the technology became available only late in the HCP methods development phase and was not sufficiently tested and developed before the data collection protocol was finalized.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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.
In the paper
“This specifically benefits diffusion imaging, and on theoretical grounds (Ugurbil et al., 2013) it should provide significant gains over the standard 40 mT/m though not as much as the 300 mT/m customized gradients used by the MGH/UCLA HCP consortium.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ugurbil et al., 2013 source
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
“The higher resolution compared to standard 1 mm structural scans improves the fidelity of cortical surface reconstruction and provides higher quality myelin maps (Glasser et al., 2013a; see below).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glasser et al., 2013a
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.
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
“These distortions have been corrected in HCP preprocessed data, but must be carried out separately by anyone starting with the unprocessed (raw) HCP scan data (see below).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Raw MRI images always contain spatial distortions, lack a common anatomical space, and do not align across modalities.
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
“Each structural scan is evaluated by a trained rater to assess overall quality (poor, fair, good, and excellent), based on visual inspection of tissue contrast, spatial blurring, ringing, and other possible artifacts.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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.
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
“Further, the requirement of in-plane acceleration, due to the higher resolution images combined with the much shorter T2* at 7T, limits the achievable multiband factor, because it also relies on the coil’s sensitivity profile to accelerate the acquisition.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 7T hardware and pulse sequences
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.
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 optimization process entailed critical evaluation and comparisons of how various existing and new methods performed, then packaging the best methods into a set of preprocessing pipelines appropriate for consistent and systematic application to all HCP datasets.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Raw MRI images always contain spatial distortions, lack a common anatomical space, and do not align across modalities.
- Rests on an assumption: Raw MRI images also contain noise, artifacts, and biases specific to each modality.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“7T provides increases in both the image SNR (Vaughan et al., 2001) and functional contrast–to-noise (Yacoub et al., 2001), compared to lower fields.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 7T hardware and pulse sequences
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
“all scan types containing potentially identifiable facial features are defaced (Milchenko and Marcus, 2013), with visual QC inspection to confirm successful defacing.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 3T Connectome scanner – hardware, pulse sequences, and scanning protocols
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Milchenko and Marcus, 2013
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, higher fields increase the relative sensitivity to the microvasculature in BOLD-based functional images (Uludag et al., 2009; Ugurbil et al., 2003b; Ogawa et al., 1993), resulting in a smaller point spread function (Shmuel et al., 2007).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > 7T hardware and pulse sequences
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.
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
“Some components represent artifacts such as head motion or cardiac pulsation, while others represent valid neuronally-related spontaneous fluctuations.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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.
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
“FIX has been hand-trained and tested on one hundred 15-minute HCP datasets, and has achieved better than 99% accuracy rate in correctly classifying components.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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
“Cortical surface alignment benefits from a subsequent stage of surface-based registration to a population-average surface, using FreeSurfer to register each hemisphere to a separate left and right atlas surfaces based on matching of cortical folding patterns (Fischl et al., 1999).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fischl et al., 1999 source
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.
In the paper
“Both the full correlation matrix and the partial correlation matrix represent mathematically well-defined entities; however, as alluded to above, neither should be regarded as an explicit, validated indicator of direct anatomical connectivity, although significant values in the partial correlation matrix will hopefully have a high probability of reflecting genuine connections (Smith, 2012).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith, 2012 source
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This fits with evidence for a major transition in functional connectivity that cuts across both V1 and V2 in their mid-eccentricity range (Yeo et al., 2011); it implies that network (parcel) boundaries defined by functional connectivity do not always respect classical areal boundaries”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
What the sources say
plaincorrelationaln = 20- 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 neurobiological interpretation of different types of representation (full correlation; correlation after mean gray-matter timecourse regression; and the partial correlation approach illustrated below) is not well understood, and none should be considered a perfect measure of direct anatomical connectivity.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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.
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
“Classical parcellations of cortical areas and subcortical nuclei commonly assume that each parcel is topologically contiguous and is non-overlapping with neighboring parcels (aside from the experimental uncertainties in areal boundaries).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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.
In the paper
“ICA components 12 and 15 include several parts of the default mode network, and support the hypothesis that this network includes functionally distinct subregions (Andrews-Hanna et al., 2010).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Andrews-Hanna et al., 2010 source
plaincorrelationaln = 20- 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
“These striking differences in functional connectivity for nearby locations reflect several factors, including the high quality (and large amount) of data acquired from each subject; the use of preprocessing and analysis steps that respect the topology of the cortical sheet; and the advanced methods used to reduce noise and artifacts.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
plaindirectSingle case- 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
“Subcortical gray matter (excluding cerebellar cortex) constitutes about 8% of brain volume; remarkably, the many vital roles of subcortical nuclei in brain function are achieved with fewer than 1% of the total number of brain neurons (Azevedo et al., 2009).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Subcortical signals
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Azevedo et al., 2009 source
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. 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
“Data from any individual shell (b = 1000, 2000, and 3000 s/mm2) can be used with standard fiber reconstruction techniques, but methods that make use of all three shells will get the largest benefit.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
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.
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
“If, hypothetically, each time point could encode just 2 bits of information that was statistically independent of other time points and other grayordinates, then the theoretical upper bound would be about one gigabit (109 bits) of information per subject.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
hedged- 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
“Accurate source reconstruction is a critical prerequisite for comparing electrophysiological results to those obtained from other imaging modalities.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > MEG acquisition and analysis
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Linear constrained minimum variance beamformers (LCMV) reconstruct source space data in the time domain and are useful for inferring connectivity in oscillatory brain activity (Schoffelen and Gross, 2009; Brookes et al., 2011).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > MEG acquisition and analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schoffelen and Gross, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Brookes et al., 2011 source
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dynamic imaging of coherent source (DICS) reconstructs source-space data in the frequency domain (Van Veen et al., 1997; Gross et al., 2001).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > MEG acquisition and analysis
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.
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
“Many other refinements represent incremental improvements individually, but the concatenation of many small increments has led to large gains in the aggregate.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Some lessons learned
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.
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
“An alternative assessment that yields a similar estimate comes from considering the covariance matrix of the fMRI timeseries, which presumably should be more reproducible across different scan sessions than the timeseries itself.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
hedged- 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
“It suggests that MRI-based connectivity analyses have the potential to discriminate connectivity ‘brainprints’ among large numbers of individuals, albeit not unique for every individual on the planet.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
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
“If so, the amount of information about brain circuits provided by rfMRI would be in the range of 107 bits per HCP subject.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
hedged- 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.
In the paper
“and evidence from the macaque monkey suggests that the strength of pathways between any pair of cortical areas can vary by one or two orders of magnitude (Markov et al., 2011).”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Markov et al., 2011 source
hedged- 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
“For the 7T HCP scans, the smaller voxel size attainable (~1 mm3) will increase the number of spatial elements about 8-fold, but the anticipated temporal resolution will be lower by 2- or 3-fold, suggesting that the total amount of information may be about 2-fold greater.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
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
“In contrast, the accuracy with which human brain connectivity can be quantitatively assessed is much lower than for genome sequencing, but the degree of individual variability is far greater.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
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.
The paper relies on this without support.
Many features of brain circuitry and behavior probably arise from small effects of many genes rather than from a few dominant genes.
“Many aspects of brain circuitry and its relation to behavior are likely to involve small contributions from many genes, rather than dominant contributions from one or a few genes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Even small head movements can harm MR data quality across modalities.
“Head movements, even small in magnitude, can have deleterious effects on MR data quality for all modalities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Raw MRI images always contain spatial distortions, lack a common anatomical space, and do not align across modalities.
“Unprocessed images from MRI scanners invariably contain several types of spatial distortion, are not in a standard anatomical space, and are misaligned across modalities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Raw MRI images also contain noise, artifacts, and biases specific to each modality.
“They also contain various types of modality-specific noise, artifacts, and biases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
DZ twins are genetically as related as ordinary full siblings but share more childhood environment, including in utero.
“Dizygotic (DZ) twins are no more related genetically than ordinary full siblings, but they share childhood environment, including in utero environment, to a greater degree.”
The paper relies on this without support.
MZ twins are genetically nearly identical.
“Monozygotic (MZ) twins should have the greatest similarity because they are genetically nearly identical.”
The paper relies on this without support.
MEG has much higher temporal resolution than MRI but coarser spatial resolution.
“The obvious advantage of MEG over MRI is the much higher temporal resolution (milliseconds vs seconds), but it occurs at the expense of coarser spatial resolution (centimeters instead of millimeters).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Subcortical regions are important enough that they must be well integrated into HCP analyses of brain connectivity and function.
“It is obviously very important that subcortical regions be well integrated into HCP analyses of brain connectivity and function.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The restricted personal information (age, height and weight, handedness) is required for many scientific studies of the heritability of brain circuits and of links between brain circuits and behavioral and demographic traits.
“On the other hand, this information will be needed for many types of scientific inquiry aimed at characterizing the heritability of brain circuits and relating brain circuits to behavioral and demographic phenotypes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
fMRI scans can be affected by signal bleeding across opposing sulcal banks.
“For example, fMRI scans can be impacted by signals “bleeding across” opposing banks of sulci.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tractography tends to show stronger connections with gyral blades than with sulcal banks and fundi.
“Tractography has a bias for showing stronger connections with gyral blades compared to sulcal banks and fundi.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Participant recruitment procedures and informed consent forms, including consent to share de-identified data, were previously approved by the Washington University institutional review board as part of the Human Connectome Project [39].”
From Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization (2016) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“using dropout [57], which can be viewed as (Bernoulli) approximate inference in Bayesian neural networks [58, 59].”
From Quicksilver: Fast predictive image registration – A deep learning approach (2017) · cites this paper as [59]
In the citing paper
“Functional connectivity as measured using fMRI is a powerful but indirect measure of network organization that can provide high spatial resolution but should not be considered a surrogate for direct anatomical connectivity29, 30.”
From Canonical genetic signatures of the adult human brain (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“the WashU-UMinn-Oxford (“WU-Minn”) HCP is generating high quality and high resolution 3T rfMRI and diffusion MRI data from over 1000 healthy adults, as well as task-fMRI, genotyping and behavioural data.”
From Functional connectomics from resting-state fMRI (2013) · cites this paper as [67]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“At 2 mm resolution the covariance matrix contains ~8 × 109 (90,0002) elements, or ~4 × 1010 information bits if there are 2 bits per element”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROSPECTS
Reported 40000000000 · recomputed 16000000000
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589
Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J.-M. (2011) · Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience · doi:10.1155/2011/156869 · Cited by 10,323
The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity
Thomas Yeo, B. T., Krienen, F. M., Sepulcre, J., Sabuncu, M. R., Lashkari, D., Hollinshead, M., Roffman, J. L., Smoller, J. W., Zöllei, L., Polimeni, J. R., et al. (2011) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00338.2011 · Cited by 9,182
The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504136102 · Cited by 8,553
Self-citationThe organization of the human cerebellum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity
Buckner, R. L., Krienen, F. M., Castellanos, A., Diaz, J. C., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2011) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00339.2011 · Cited by 7,304
The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project
Glasser, M. F., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Wilson, J. A., Coalson, T. S., Fischl, B., Andersson, J. L., Xu, J., Jbabdi, S., Webster, M., Polimeni, J. R., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.127 · Cited by 5,253
Self-citationFunctional Network Organization of the Human Brain
Power, J. D., Cohen, A. L., Nelson, S. M., Wig, G. S., Barnes, K. A., Church, J. A., Vogel, A. C., Laumann, T. O., Miezin, F. M., Schlaggar, B. L., et al. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006 · Cited by 4,124
Ogawa, S., Tank, D. W., Menon, R., Ellermann, J. M., Kim, S. G., Merkle, H., & Ugurbil, K. (1992) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.89.13.5951 · Cited by 3,681
Self-citationProbabilistic diffusion tractography with multiple fibre orientations: What can we gain?
Behrens, T. E. J., Berg, H. J., Jbabdi, S., Rushworth, M. F. S., & Woolrich, M. W. (2007) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.018 · Cited by 3,471
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Moeller, 2008, fMRI with 16 fold reduction using multibanded multislice sampling, Proc. Int. Soc. Magn. Reson. Med., 16
- Van Essen, 2013, In vivo architectonics: a cortico-centric perspective, NeuroImage
- Wig, 2013, Parcellating an individual subject's cortical and subcortical brain structures using snowball sampling of resting-state correlations, Cereb. Cortex
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex
Glasser, M. F., Coalson, T. S., Robinson, E. C., Hacker, C. D., Harwell, J., Yacoub, E., Ugurbil, K., Andersson, J., Beckmann, C. F., Jenkinson, M., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18933 · Cited by 5,111
Self-citationCluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1602413113 · Cited by 3,487
Functional connectome fingerprinting: Identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity
Finn, E. S., Shen, X., Scheinost, D., Rosenberg, M. D., Huang, J., Chun, M. M., Papademetris, X., & Constable, R. T. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4135 · Cited by 2,747
Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization
Margulies, D. S., Ghosh, S. S., Goulas, A., Falkiewicz, M., Huntenburg, J. M., Langs, G., Bezgin, G., Eickhoff, S. B., Castellanos, F. X., Petrides, M., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1608282113 · Cited by 2,321
A mesoscale connectome of the mouse brain
Oh, S. W., Harris, J. A., Ng, L., Winslow, B., Cain, N., Mihalas, S., Wang, Q., Lau, C., Kuan, L., Henry, A. M., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13186 · Cited by 2,612
Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study
Miller, K. L., Alfaro-Almagro, F., Bangerter, N. K., Thomas, D. L., Yacoub, E., Xu, J., Bartsch, A. J., Jbabdi, S., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Andersson, J. L. R., et al. (2016) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4393 · Cited by 2,020
Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Douaud, G., Beckmann, C. F., Glasser, M. F., Griffanti, L., & Smith, S. M. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.046 · Cited by 1,770
Self-citationIntrinsic and task-evoked network architectures of the human brain
Cole, M. W., Bassett, D. S., Power, J. D., Braver, T. S., & Petersen, S. E. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.014 · Cited by 1,564
Function in the human connectome: task-fMRI and individual differences in behavior
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., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.033 · Cited by 1,529
Self-citationResting-state fMRI in the human connectome project
Smith, S. M., Beckmann, C. F., Andersson, J., Auerbach, E. J., Bijsterbosch, J., Douaud, G., Duff, E., Feinberg, D. A., Griffanti, L., Harms, M. P., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.039 · Cited by 1,502
Self-citationPrecision Functional Mapping of Individual Human Brains
Gordon, E. M., Laumann, T. O., Gilmore, A. W., Newbold, D. J., Greene, D. J., Berg, J. J., Ortega, M., Hoyt-Drazen, C., Gratton, C., Sun, H., et al. (2017) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.07.011 · Cited by 1,335
Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., Matthews, P. M., Munafò, M. R., Nichols, T. E., Poline, J.-B., Vul, E., & Yarkoni, T. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.167 · Cited by 1,410
Dipy, a library for the analysis of diffusion MRI data
Garyfallidis, E., Brett, M., Amirbekian, B., Rokem, A., van der Walt, S., Descoteaux, M., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Contributors, D. (2014) · Frontiers in Neuroinformatics · doi:10.3389/fninf.2014.00008 · Cited by 1,371
Tractography-based connectomes are dominated by false-positive connections
Maier-Hein, K. H., Neher, P., Houde, J.-C., Côté, M.-A., Garyfallidis, E., Zhong, J., Chamberland, M., Yeh, F.-C., Lin, Y.-C., Ji, Q., et al. (2016) · doi:10.1101/084137 · Cited by 1,376
The Human Connectome Project's neuroimaging approach
Glasser, M. F., Smith, S. M., Marcus, D. S., Andersson, J. L. R., Auerbach, E. J., Behrens, T. E. J., Coalson, T. S., Harms, M. P., Jenkinson, M., Moeller, S., et al. (2016) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4361 · Cited by 1,090
Self-citationDomain adaptation for medical image analysis: A survey
Guan, H., & Liu, M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2021.3117407 · Cited by 1,057
Preparing Medical Imaging Data for Machine Learning
Willemink, M. J., Koszek, W. A., Hardell, C., Wu, J., Fleischmann, D., Harvey, H., Folio, L. R., Summers, R. M., Rubin, D. L., & Lungren, M. P. (2020) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020192224 · Cited by 1,020
The default mode network in cognition: a topographical perspective
Smallwood, J., Bernhardt, B. C., Leech, R., Bzdok, D., Jefferies, E., & Margulies, D. S. (2021) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-021-00474-4 · Cited by 935
Smith, S. M., Nichols, T. E., Vidaurre, D., Winkler, A. M., Behrens, T. E. J., Glasser, M. F., Ugurbil, K., Barch, D. M., Van Essen, D. C., & Miller, K. L. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4125 · Cited by 859
Self-citationSingle subject prediction of brain disorders in neuroimaging: Promises and pitfalls
Arbabshirani, M. R., Plis, S., Sui, J., & Calhoun, V. D. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.079 · Cited by 912
Functional connectomics from resting-state fMRI
Smith, S. M., Vidaurre, D., Beckmann, C. F., Glasser, M. F., Jenkinson, M., Miller, K. L., Nichols, T. E., Robinson, E. C., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Woolrich, M. W., et al. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.016 · Cited by 952
Self-citationUğurbil, K., Xu, J., Auerbach, E. J., Moeller, S., Vu, A. T., Duarte-Carvajalino, J. M., Lenglet, C., Wu, X., Schmitter, S., Van de Moortele, P. F., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.012 · Cited by 812
Self-citationCross-validation failure: Small sample sizes lead to large error bars
Varoquaux, G. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.061 · Cited by 897
Time-resolved resting-state brain networks
Zalesky, A., Fornito, A., Cocchi, L., Gollo, L. L., & Breakspear, M. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1400181111 · Cited by 753
Hansen, J. Y., Shafiei, G., Markello, R. D., Smart, K., Cox, S. M. L., Nørgaard, M., Beliveau, V., Wu, Y., Gallezot, J.-D., Aumont, É., et al. (2022) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-022-01186-3 · Cited by 797
MSM: a new flexible framework for Multimodal Surface Matching
Robinson, E. C., Jbabdi, S., Glasser, M. F., Andersson, J., Burgess, G. C., Harms, M. P., Smith, S. M., Van Essen, D. C., & Jenkinson, M. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.069 · Cited by 640
Self-citationUnderstanding heterogeneity in clinical cohorts using normative models: Beyond case-control studies
Marquand, A. F., Rezek, I., Buitelaar, J., & Beckmann, C. F. (2016) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.12.023 · Cited by 683
Elliott, M. L., Knodt, A. R., Ireland, D., Morris, M. L., Poulton, R., Ramrakha, S., Sison, M. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Hariri, A. R. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620916786 · Cited by 714
Towards a universal taxonomy of macro-scale functional human brain networks
Uddin, L. Q., Yeo, B. T. T., & Spreng, R. N. (2019) · Brain Topography · doi:10.1007/s10548-019-00744-6 · Cited by 683
Precision psychiatry: a neural circuit taxonomy for depression and anxiety
Williams, L. M. (2016) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00579-9 · Cited by 641
Burt, J. B., Demirtaş, M., Eckner, W. J., Navejar, N. M., Ji, J. L., Martin, W. J., Bernacchia, A., Anticevic, A., & Murray, J. D. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0195-0 · Cited by 657
Canonical genetic signatures of the adult human brain
Hawrylycz, M., Miller, J. A., Menon, V., Feng, D., Dolbeare, T., Guillozet-Bongaarts, A. L., Jegga, A. G., Aronow, B. J., Lee, C.-K., Bernard, A., et al. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4171 · Cited by 663
Quicksilver: Fast predictive image registration – A deep learning approach
Yang, X., Kwitt, R., Styner, M., & Niethammer, M. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.008 · Cited by 630
Nonsocial and social cognition in schizophrenia: current evidence and future directions
Green, M. F., Horan, W. P., & Lee, J. (2019) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20624 · Cited by 612
Psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression: fMRI-measured brain mechanisms
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Bolstridge, M., Demetriou, L., Pannekoek, J. N., Wall, M. B., Tanner, M., Kaelen, M., McGonigle, J., Murphy, K., et al. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13282-7 · Cited by 587
Diffusion MRI fiber tractography of the brain
Jeurissen, B., Descoteaux, M., Mori, S., & Leemans, A. (2019) · NMR in Biomedicine · doi:10.1002/nbm.3785 · Cited by 574
“Fiber tracking has also claimed a central role in the field of “connectomics,” a technique that builds and studies comprehensive maps of the complex network of connections within the brain,(7) and to which significant resources are allocated worldwide.(8,9) Despite its unique abilities and exciting applications, fiber…”
BackgroundGenerative modeling of brain maps with spatial autocorrelation
Burt, J. B., Helmer, M., Shinn, M., Anticevic, A., & Murray, J. D. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117038 · Cited by 528
Parcellating cortical functional networks in individuals
Wang, D., Buckner, R. L., Fox, M. D., Holt, D. J., Holmes, A. J., Stoecklein, S., Langs, G., Pan, R., Qian, T., Li, K., et al. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4164 · Cited by 527
Human Connectome Project informatics: Quality control, database services, and data visualization
Marcus, D. S., Harms, M. P., Snyder, A. Z., Jenkinson, M., Wilson, J. A., Glasser, M. F., Barch, D. M., Archie, K. A., Burgess, G. C., Ramaratnam, M., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.077 · Cited by 465
Self-citationFunctional gradients of the cerebellum
Guell, X., Schmahmann, J. D., Gabrieli, J. D., & Ghosh, S. S. (2018) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.36652 · Cited by 472
neuromaps: structural and functional interpretation of brain maps
Markello, R. D., Hansen, J. Y., Liu, Z.-Q., Bazinet, V., Shafiei, G., Suárez, L. E., Blostein, N., Seidlitz, J., Baillet, S., Satterthwaite, T. D., et al. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01625-w · Cited by 479
Distinct Global Brain Dynamics and Spatiotemporal Organization of the Salience Network
Chen, T., Cai, W., Ryali, S., Supekar, K., & Menon, V. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002469 · Cited by 480
Conceptualizing mental disorders as deviations from normative functioning
Marquand, A. F., Kia, S. M., Zabihi, M., Wolfers, T., Buitelaar, J. K., & Beckmann, C. F. (2019) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0441-1 · Cited by 433
Human brain mapping: A systematic comparison of parcellation methods for the human cerebral cortex
Arslan, S., Ktena, S. I., Makropoulos, A., Robinson, E. C., Rueckert, D., & Parisot, S. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.014 · Cited by 374
Cooperative and competitive spreading dynamics on the human connectome
Mišić, B., Betzel, R. F., Nematzadeh, A., Goñi, J., Griffa, A., Hagmann, P., Flammini, A., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Sporns, O. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.05.035 · Cited by 342
Li, J., Kong, R., Liégeois, R., Orban, C., Tan, Y., Sun, N., Holmes, A. J., Sabuncu, M. R., Ge, T., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.016 · Cited by 380
Langlotz, C. P., Allen, B., Erickson, B. J., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Bigelow, K., Cook, T. S., Flanders, A. E., Lungren, M. P., Mendelson, D. S., Rudie, J. D., et al. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019190613 · Cited by 368
A Synergistic Core for Human Brain Evolution and Cognition
Luppi, A. I., Mediano, P. A. M., Rosas, F. E., Holland, N., Fryer, T. D., O’Brien, J. T., Rowe, J. B., Menon, D. K., Bor, D., & Stamatakis, E. A. (2022) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-022-01070-0 · Cited by 314
Measuring macroscopic brain connections in vivo
Jbabdi, S., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Haber, S. N., Van Essen, D. C., & Behrens, T. E. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4134 · Cited by 334
Self-citationBurgess, G. C., Kandala, S., Nolan, D., Laumann, T. O., Power, J. D., Adeyemo, B., Harms, M. P., Petersen, S. E., & Barch, D. M. (2016) · Brain Connectivity · doi:10.1089/brain.2016.0435 · Cited by 216
Self-citationHe, T., Kong, R., Holmes, A. J., Nguyen, M., Sabuncu, M. R., Eickhoff, S. B., Bzdok, D., Feng, J., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116276 · Cited by 271
Evaluation and statistical inference for human connectomes
Pestilli, F., Yeatman, J. D., Rokem, A., Kay, K. N., & Wandell, B. A. (2014) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.3098 · Cited by 259
Neurite imaging reveals microstructural variations in human cerebral cortical gray matter
Fukutomi, H., Glasser, M. F., Zhang, H., Autio, J. A., Coalson, T. S., Okada, T., Togashi, K., Van Essen, D. C., & Hayashi, T. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.017 · Cited by 234
Wiring cost and topological participation of the mouse brain connectome
Rubinov, M., Ypma, R. J. F., Watson, C., & Bullmore, E. T. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1420315112 · Cited by 219
White, T., Blok, E., & Calhoun, V. D. (2022) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25120 · Cited by 176
“Assuring that the shared data has the optimum data quality, or including metrics that allow users to understand the underlying quality of pre-processed images (Esteban et al., 2017; White et al., 2018) is important to reduce noise-related variability and to increase power (Zuo, Xu, & Milham, 2019).”
BackgroundMapping Structural Connectivity Using Diffusion MRI : Challenges and Opportunities
Yeh, C., Jones, D. K., Liang, X., Descoteaux, M., & Connelly, A. (2021) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.27188 · Cited by 187
Brain–phenotype models fail for individuals who defy sample stereotypes
Greene, A. S., Shen, X., Noble, S., Horien, C., Hahn, C. A., Arora, J., Tokoglu, F., Spann, M. N., Carrión, C. I., Barron, D. S., et al. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05118-w · Cited by 167
Networks of task co-activations
Laird, A. R., Eickhoff, S. B., Rottschy, C., Bzdok, D., Ray, K. L., & Fox, P. T. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.073 · Cited by 168
Revisiting the global workspace orchestrating the hierarchical organization of the human brain
Deco, G., Vidaurre, D., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-01003-6 · Cited by 162
Genç, E., Fraenz, C., Schlüter, C., Friedrich, P., Hossiep, R., Voelkle, M. C., Ling, J. M., Güntürkün, O., & Jung, R. E. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04268-8 · Cited by 167
TAPAS: An Open-Source Software Package for Translational Neuromodeling and Computational Psychiatry
Frässle, S., Aponte, E. A., Bollmann, S., Brodersen, K. H., Do, C. T., Harrison, O. K., Harrison, S. J., Heinzle, J., Iglesias, S., Kasper, L., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.680811 · Cited by 169
Assessing inter individual differences with task related functional neuroimaging
Lebreton, M., Bavard, S., Daunizeau, J., & Palminteri, S. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0681-8 · Cited by 160
Two distinct scene processing networks connecting vision and memory
Baldassano, C., Esteva, A., Fei-Fei, L., & Beck, D. M. (2016) · eneuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0178-16.2016 · Cited by 144
Reconstructing the Neanderthal brain using computational anatomy
Kochiyama, T., Ogihara, N., Tanabe, H. C., Kondo, O., Amano, H., Hasegawa, K., Suzuki, H., Ponce de León, M. S., Zollikofer, C. P. E., Bastir, M., et al. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24331-0 · Cited by 156
Role of brain imaging in disorders of brain–gut interaction: a Rome Working Team Report
Mayer, E. A., Labus, J., Aziz, Q., Tracey, I., Kilpatrick, L., Elsenbruch, S., Schweinhardt, P., Van Oudenhove, L., & Borsook, D. (2019) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318308 · Cited by 138
Transfer learning in magnetic resonance brain imaging: a systematic review
Valverde, J. M., Imani, V., Abdollahzadeh, A., De Feo, R., Prakash, M., Ciszek, R., & Tohka, J. (2021) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging7040066 · Cited by 137
Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis.
Anglim, J., Dunlop, P. D., Wee, S., Horwood, S., Wood, J. K., & Marty, A. (2022) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000373 · Cited by 125
Detect and correct bias in multi-site neuroimaging datasets
Wachinger, C., Rieckmann, A., & Pölsterl, S. (2021) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101879 · Cited by 115
Artificial intelligence for diagnostic and prognostic neuroimaging in dementia: a systematic review
Borchert, R. J., Azevedo, T., Badhwar, A., Bernal, J., Betts, M., Bruffaerts, R., Burkhart, M. C., Dewachter, I., Gellersen, H. M., Low, A., et al. (2023) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.13412 · Cited by 125
Turbulent-like Dynamics in the Human Brain
Deco, G., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2020) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108471 · Cited by 113
An afferent white matter pathway from the pulvinar to the amygdala facilitates fear recognition
McFadyen, J., Mattingley, J. B., & Garrido, M. I. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.40766 · Cited by 115
A spectrum of routing strategies for brain networks
Avena-Koenigsberger, A., Yan, X., Kolchinsky, A., van den Heuvel, M. P., Hagmann, P., & Sporns, O. (2019) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006833 · Cited by 115
Modeling transcranial electrical stimulation in the aging brain
Indahlastari, A., Albizu, A., O’Shea, A., Forbes, M. A., Nissim, N. R., Kraft, J. N., Evangelista, N. D., Hausman, H. K., & Woods, A. J. (2020) · Brain Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2020.02.007 · Cited by 113
Current methods and new directions in resting state fMRI
Yang, J., Gohel, S., & Vachha, B. (2020) · Clinical Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.04.004 · Cited by 110
Sotiropoulos, S. N., Hernández-Fernández, M., Vu, A. T., Andersson, J. L., Moeller, S., Yacoub, E., Lenglet, C., Ugurbil, K., Behrens, T. E. J., & Jbabdi, S. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.014 · Cited by 110
Self-citationProgress toward openness, transparency, and reproducibility in cognitive neuroscience
Gilmore, R. O., Diaz, M. T., Wyble, B. A., & Yarkoni, T. (2017) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13325 · Cited by 95
The Brain Analysis Library of Spatial maps and Atlases (BALSA) database
Van Essen, D. C., Smith, J., Glasser, M. F., Elam, J., Donahue, C. J., Dierker, D. L., Reid, E. K., Coalson, T., & Harwell, J. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.002 · Cited by 89
Self-citationEklund, A., Knutsson, H., & Nichols, T. E. (2019) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.24350 · Cited by 82
The neurocognitive correlates of brain entropy estimated by resting state fMRI
Wang, Z. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117893 · Cited by 77
Aydogan, D. B., Jacobs, R., Dulawa, S., Thompson, S. L., Francois, M. C., Toga, A. W., Dong, H., Knowles, J. A., & Shi, Y. (2018) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-018-1663-8 · Cited by 72
St-Jean, S., Coupé, P., & Descoteaux, M. (2016) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2016.02.010 · Cited by 74
Functional connectivity change as shared signal dynamics
Cole, M. W., Yang, G. J., Murray, J. D., Repovš, G., & Anticevic, A. (2016) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.11.011 · Cited by 60
Bernal, J., & Mazo, C. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122010228 · Cited by 70
Fiber tractography using machine learning
Neher, P. F., Côté, M.-A., Houde, J.-C., Descoteaux, M., & Maier-Hein, K. H. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.028 · Cited by 68
Hansen, J. Y., Markello, R. D., Tuominen, L., Nørgaard, M., Kuzmin, E., Palomero-Gallagher, N., Dagher, A., & Misic, B. (2022) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119671 · Cited by 69
Morphological and functional variability in central and subcentral motor cortex of the human brain
Eichert, N., Watkins, K. E., Mars, R. B., & Petrides, M. (2021) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-020-02180-w · Cited by 58
Lee, E., Choi, J.-S., Kim, M., & Suk, H.-I. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116113 · Cited by 61
The emergence of a functionally flexible brain during early infancy
Yin, W., Li, T., Hung, S.-C., Zhang, H., Wang, L., Shen, D., Zhu, H., Mucha, P. J., Cohen, J. R., & Lin, W. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2002645117 · Cited by 56
Pure Apraxia of Speech After Resection Based in the Posterior Middle Frontal Gyrus
Chang, E. F., Kurteff, G., Andrews, J. P., Briggs, R. G., Conner, A. K., Battiste, J. D., & Sughrue, M. E. (2020) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyaa002 · Cited by 58
Yazdan-Panah, A., Schmidt-Mengin, M., Ricigliano, V. A. G., Soulier, T., Stankoff, B., & Colliot, O. (2023) · NeuroImage: Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2023.103368 · Cited by 58
Fiber length profiling: a novel approach to structural brain organization
Bajada, C. J., Schreiber, J., & Caspers, S. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.070 · Cited by 55
Refacing: Reconstructing Anonymized Facial Features Using GANS
Abramian, D., & Eklund, A. (2019) · 2019 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2019) · doi:10.1109/isbi.2019.8759515 · Cited by 63
Analysis of cortical shape in children with simplex autism
Dierker, D. L., Feczko, E., Pruett, J. R., Petersen, S. E., Schlaggar, B. L., Constantino, J. N., Harwell, J. W., Coalson, T. S., & Van Essen, D. C. (2015) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht294 · Cited by 50
Self-citationOnset pattern of nigrostriatal denervation in early Parkinson’s disease
Pineda-Pardo, J. A., Sánchez-Ferro, Á., Monje, M. H. G., Pavese, N., & Obeso, J. A. (2022) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awab378 · Cited by 51
Toward Robust Anxiety Biomarkers: A Machine Learning Approach in a Large-Scale Sample
Boeke, E. A., Holmes, A. J., & Phelps, E. A. (2020) · Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.05.018 · Cited by 50
RNA-Seq Reveals Novel Transcriptional Reorganization in Human Alcoholic Brain
Farris, S. P., & Dayne Mayfield, R. (2014) · International Review of Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801105-8.00011-4 · Cited by 49
Dementia ConnEEGtome: towards multicentric harmonization of EEG connectivity in neurodegeneration
Prado, P., Birba, A., Cruzat, J., Santamaría-García, H., Parra, M., Moguilner, S., Tagliazucchi, E., & Ibáñez, A. (2022) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.12.008 · Cited by 43
Pushing the Boundaries of Psychiatric Neuroimaging to Ground Diagnosis in Biology
Saggar, M., & Uddin, L. Q. (2019) · eneuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0384-19.2019 · Cited by 38
Warnaby, C. E., Seretny, M., Ní Mhuircheartaigh, R., Rogers, R., Jbabdi, S., Sleigh, J., & Tracey, I. (2016) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000001027 · Cited by 38
Molecular neuroanatomy: a generation of progress
Pollock, J. D., Wu, D.-Y., & Satterlee, J. S. (2014) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2013.11.001 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Essen, D. C., Smith, S. M., Barch, D. M., Behrens, T. E. J., Yacoub, E., & Ugurbil, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-10
- Volume
- 80
- Pages
- 62-79
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3724347
- OpenAlex
- W2024729467
- Cited by
- 5,651
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 513 · 2025: 688 · 2024: 684 · 2023: 567 · 2022: 599 · 2021: 577 · 2020: 526 · 2019: 448 · 2018: 339 · 2017: 271 · 2016: 204 · 2015: 140 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 22
- FWCI
- 12.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- UniTERAMO Research Catalog (University of Teramo) (submittedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- NIH grant (1U54MH091657)
- 16 NIH Institutes and Centers
- McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience at Washington University
- Biotechnology Research Center (BTRC) (P41 EB015894)
- NIBIB
- NINDS Institutional Center Core Grant (P30 NS076408)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- Human Connectome Project, human brain connectivity, neuroimaging preprocessing, open science, healthy adults, brain-behavior relationship
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Humans, Models, Anatomic, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
