The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 66 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
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
41 Not checked yet · 31 No basis given · 26 Own interpretation · 26 Own result · 7 Own method · 1 Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Figure 9 displays results from the language processing task developed by Binder et al. (2011), with the specific contrast being story processing versus math. These data are acquired in approximately 8 minutes, and show robust group level activation in anterior and inferior temporal regions, as well as ventral prefrontal regions typically associated with various components of language processing.”
§ The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview > HCP PROGRESS > Data Processing and Preliminary Analyses
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Binder et al. (2011) source
The Results (FMRI Results: MCW Cohort) describe Story-versus-Math activation in the anterior and inferior temporal cortex, including the temporal pole and inferior temporal gyrus. The same section reports activation in the ventral inferior frontal gyrus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
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.
- 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-citationTemporal Autocorrelation in Univariate Linear Modeling of FMRI Data
Woolrich, M. W., Ripley, B. D., Brady, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0931 · Cited by 2,859
Self-citationFunctional-anatomic fractionation of the brain’s default network
Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Reidler, J. S., Sepulcre, J., Poulin, R., & Buckner, R. L. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.02.005 · Cited by 2,767
Probabilistic Independent Component Analysis for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Beckmann, C. F., & Smith, S. M. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2003.822821 · Cited by 2,707
Self-citationThe Human Connectome Project: A data acquisition perspective
Essen, D. C. V., Uǧurbil, K., Auerbach, E. J., Barch, D. M., Behrens, T. E. J., Bucholz, R. D., Chang, A., Chen, L., Corbetta, M., Curtiss, S. W., et al. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.018 · Cited by 2,638
Self-citationVan Veen, B. D., Van Drongelen, W., Yuchtman, M., & Suzuki, A. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/10.623056 · Cited by 2,561
Azevedo, F. A. C., Carvalho, L. R. B., Grinberg, L. T., Farfel, J. M., Ferretti, R. E. L., Leite, R. E. P., Filho, W. J., Lent, R., & Herculano‐Houzel, S. (2009) · Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.21974 · Cited by 2,337
Network modelling methods for FMRI
Smith, S. M., Miller, K. L., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Webster, M., Beckmann, C. F., Nichols, T. E., Ramsey, J. D., & Woolrich, M. W. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.063 · Cited by 1,878
Self-citationDynamic imaging of coherent sources: studying neural interactions in the human brain
Gross, J., Kujala, J., Hämäläinen, M., Timmermann, L., Schnitzler, A., & Salmelin, R. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.694 · Cited by 1,810
Ogawa, S., Menon, R. S., Tank, D. W., Kim, S. G., Merkle, H., Ellermann, J. M., & Ugurbil, K. (1993) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(93)81441-3 · Cited by 1,772
Self-citationBucholz, K. K., Cadoret, R. J., Cloninger, C. R., Dinwiddie, S. H., HESSELBROCK, V. M., Nürnberger, J. I., Reich, T., Schmidt, I., & Schuckit, M. A. (1994) · Journal of Studies on Alcohol · doi:10.15288/jsa.1994.55.149 · Cited by 1,747
Moeller, S., Yacoub, E., Olman, C. A., Auerbach, E., Strupp, J., Harel, N., & Uğurbil, K. (2010) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.22361 · Cited by 1,586
Self-citationFunction 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-citationMapping Human Cortical Areas In Vivo Based on Myelin Content as Revealed by T1- and T2-Weighted MRI
Glasser, M. F., & Van Essen, D. C. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2180-11.2011 · Cited by 1,447
Self-citationMultiplexed echo planar imaging for sub-second whole brain FMRI and fast diffusion imaging
Feinberg, D. A., Moeller, S., Smith, S. M., Auerbach, E., Ramanna, S., Glasser, M. F., Miller, K. L., Ugurbil, K., & Yacoub, E. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015710 · Cited by 1,296
Self-citationSetsompop, K., Gagoski, B. A., Polimeni, J. R., Witzel, T., Wedeen, V. J., & Wald, L. L. (2012) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.23097 · Cited by 1,285
7T vs. 4T: RF power, homogeneity, and signal-to-noise comparison in head images
Vaughan, J. T., Garwood, M., Collins, C. M., Liu, W., DelaBarre, L., Adriany, G., Andersen, P., Merkle, H., Goebel, R., Smith, M. B., et al. (2001) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1156 · Cited by 890
Self-citationSource connectivity analysis with MEG and EEG
Schoffelen, J., & Groß, J. (2009) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20745 · Cited by 889
Advances in diffusion MRI acquisition and processing in the Human Connectome Project
Sotiropoulos, S. N., Jbabdi, S., Xu, J., Andersson, J., Moeller, S., Auerbach, E. J., Glasser, M. F., Hernandez, M., Sapiro, G., Jenkinson, M., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.057 · Cited by 889
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-citationTemporal dynamics of spontaneous MEG activity in brain networks
de Pasquale, F., Della Penna, S., Snyder, A. Z., Lewis, C., Mantini, D., Marzetti, L., Belardinelli, P., Ciancetta, L., Pizzella, V., Romani, G. L., et al. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0913863107 · Cited by 698
Genetic variation, classification and ‘race’
Jorde, L. B., & Wooding, S. P. (2004) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1435 · Cited by 637
Parcellations and Hemispheric Asymmetries of Human Cerebral Cortex Analyzed on Surface-Based Atlases
Van Essen, D. C., Glasser, M. F., Dierker, D. L., Harwell, J., & Coalson, T. (2012) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr291 · Cited by 616
Self-citationTractography: Where Do We Go from Here?
Jbabdi, S., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2011) · Brain Connectivity · doi:10.1089/brain.2011.0033 · Cited by 614
Defining functional areas in individual human brains using resting functional connectivity MRI
Cohen, A. L., Fair, D. A., Dosenbach, N. U. F., Miezin, F. M., Dierker, D., Van Essen, D. C., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2008) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.066 · Cited by 582
Self-citationMeasuring functional connectivity using MEG: methodology and comparison with fcMRI
Brookes, M. J., Hale, J. R., Zumer, J. M., Stevenson, C. M., Francis, S. T., Barnes, G. R., Owen, J. P., Morris, P. G., & Nagarajan, S. S. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.054 · Cited by 519
Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine
Tishkoff, S. A., & Kídd, K. K. (2004) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1438 · Cited by 514
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-citationTrends and properties of human cerebral cortex: Correlations with cortical myelin content
Glasser, M. F., Goyal, M. S., Preuss, T. M., Raichle, M. E., & Essen, D. C. V. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.060 · Cited by 456
Uludağ, K., Müller-Bierl, B., & Uğurbil, K. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.051 · Cited by 450
Imaging brain function in humans at 7 Tesla
Yacoub, E., Shmuel, A., Pfeuffer, J., Van De Moortele, P., Adriany, G., Andersen, P., Vaughan, J. T., Merkle, H., Ugurbil, K., & Hu, X. (2001) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1080 · Cited by 448
Self-citationA Cortical Core for Dynamic Integration of Functional Networks in the Resting Human Brain
de Pasquale, F., Penna, S. D., Snyder, A. Z., Marzetti, L., Pizzella, V., Romani, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.031 · Cited by 422
Imaging human connectomes at the macroscale
Craddock, R. C., Jbabdi, S., Yan, C.-G., Vogelstein, J. T., Castellanos, F. X., Di Martino, A., Kelly, C., Heberlein, K., Colcombe, S., & Milham, M. P. (2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2482 · Cited by 419
Jbabdi, S., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Savio, A. M., Graña, M., & Behrens, T. E. J. (2012) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.24204 · Cited by 399
Self-citationZaitsev, M., Dold, C., Sakas, G., Hennig, J., & Speck, O. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.039 · Cited by 392
Weight consistency specifies regularities of macaque cortical networks
Markov, N. T., Misery, P., Falchier, A., Lamy, C., Vezoli, J., Quilodran, R., Gariel, M. A., Giroud, P., Ercsey-Ravasz, M., Pilaz, L. J., et al. (2011) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq201 · Cited by 386
The future of fMRI connectivity
Smith, S. M. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.022 · Cited by 355
Self-citationSteps toward optimizing motion artifact removal in functional connectivity MRI; a reply to Carp
Power, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.017 · Cited by 336
Mapping anterior temporal lobe language areas with fMRI: a multicenter normative study
Binder, J. R., Gross, W. L., Allendorfer, J. B., Bonilha, L., Chapin, J., Edwards, J. C., Grabowski, T. J., Langfitt, J. T., Loring, D. W., Lowe, M. J., et al. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.048 · Cited by 300
Spatio-temporal point-spread function of fMRI signal in human gray matter at 7 Tesla
Shmuel, A., Yacoub, E., Chaimow, D., Logothetis, N. K., & Ugurbil, K. (2007) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.030 · Cited by 294
Self-citationA Note on the Statistical Power in Extended Twin Designs
Posthuma, D., & Boomsma, D. I. (2000) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1023/a:1001959306025 · Cited by 272
Ultrahigh field magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy
Uǧurbil, K., Adriany, G., Andersen, P. M., Chen, W., Garwood, M., Rolf Gruetter, A., Henry, P.-G., Kim, S., Lieu, H., Tkáč, I., et al. (2003) · Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.mri.2003.08.027 · Cited by 252
Self-citationSpatially constrained hierarchical parcellation of the brain with resting-state fMRI
Blumensath, T., Jbabdi, S., Glasser, M. F., Essen, D. C. V., Uǧurbil, K., Behrens, T. E. J., & Smith, S. M. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.024 · Cited by 231
Self-citationAdding dynamics to the Human Connectome Project with MEG
Larson‐Prior, L. J., Oostenveld, R., Penna, S. D., Michalareas, G., Prior, F., Abbas Babajani-feremi, A., Schoffelen, J., Marzetti, L., de Pasquale, F., Pompeo, F., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.056 · Cited by 222
Jbabdi, S., Lehman, J. F., Haber, S. N., & Behrens, T. E. (2013) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2457-12.2013 · Cited by 213
Self-citationHow accurate is magnetic resonance imaging of brain function?
Uǧurbil, K., Toth, L. J., & Kim, D. (2003) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(02)00039-5 · Cited by 198
Sotiropoulos, S. N., Moeller, S., Jbabdi, S., Xu, J., Andersson, J., Auerbach, E. J., Yacoub, E. S., Feinberg, D. A., Setsompop, K., Wald, L. L., et al. (2013) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.24623 · Cited by 192
Self-citationLenglet, C., Abosch, A., Yacoub, E., De Martino, F., Sapiro, G., & Harel, N. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029153 · Cited by 164 · cited 2×
“dynamic range of the signal relative to the conventional root-sum-ofsquares approach (Lenglet et al., 2012; Sotiropoulos et al., 2012, 2013b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBall and rackets: inferring fiber fanning from diffusion-weighted MRI
Sotiropoulos, S. N., Behrens, T. E. J., & Jbabdi, S. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.056 · Cited by 156
Self-citationObscuring Surface Anatomy in Volumetric Imaging Data
Milchenko, M., & Marcus, D. (2013) · Neuroinformatics · doi:10.1007/s12021-012-9160-3 · Cited by 145
A Signal-Processing Pipeline for Magnetoencephalography Resting-State Networks
Mantini, D., Penna, S. D., Marzetti, L., de Pasquale, F., Pizzella, V., Corbetta, M., & Romani, G. L. (2011) · Brain Connectivity · doi:10.1089/brain.2011.0001 · Cited by 128
Artifact Removal in Magnetoencephalogram Background Activity With Independent Component Analysis
Escudero, J., Hornero, R., Abásolo, D., Fernández, A., & López-Coronado, M. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2007.894968 · Cited by 71
Robinson, E. C., Jbabdi, S., Andersson, J., Smith, S. M., Glasser, M. F., Essen, D. C. V., Burgess, G., Harms, M. P., Barch, D. M., & Jenkinson, M. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38868-2_40 · Cited by 38
Self-citationLost in localization — But found with foci?!
Van Essen, D. C. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.050 · Cited by 22
Self-citationBotteron, K. N. (2008) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.01.015 · Cited by 6
High-resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface
Fischl, B., Sereno, M. I., Tootell, R. B. H., & Dale, A. M. (1999) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4
Larkman (2001) · doi:10.1002/1522-2586(200102)13:2
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
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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
