Cited by 27Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Subject-level measurement of local cortical coupling

Open access
Vandekar, Simon N., Shinohara, Russell T., Raznahan, Armin, Hopson, Ryan D., Roalf, David R., Ruparel, Kosha, Gur, Ruben C., Gur, Raquel E. +1 more·2016·NeuroImage

Abstract

The human cortex is highly folded to allow for a massive expansion of surface area. Notably, the thickness of the cortex strongly depends on cortical topology, with gyral cortex sometimes twice as thick as sulcal cortex. We recently demonstrated that global differences in thickness between gyral and sulcal cortex continue to evolve throughout adolescence. However, human cortical development is spatially heterogeneous, and global comparisons lack power to detect localized differences in development or psychopathology. Here we extend previous work by proposing a new measure - local cortical coupling - that is sensitive to differences in the localized topological relationship between cortical thickness and sulcal depth. After estimation, subject-level coupling maps can be analyzed using standard neuroimaging analysis tools. Capitalizing on a large cross-sectional sample (n=932) of youth imaged as part of the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort, we demonstrate that local coupling is spatially heterogeneous and exhibits nonlinear development-related trajectories. Moreover, we uncover sex differences in coupling that indicate divergent patterns of cortical topology. Developmental changes and sex differences in coupling support its potential as a neuroimaging phenotype for investigating neuropsychiatric disorders that are increasingly conceptualized as disorders of brain development. R code to estimate subject-level coupling maps from any two cortical surfaces generated by FreeSurfer is made publicly available along with this manuscript.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.002

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Our results do not contradict previous reports of age-related patterns in the coupling between cortical thickness and sulcal depth (Vandekar et al. 2016).

    “Our results do not contradict previous reports of age-related patterns in the coupling between cortical thickness and sulcal depth (Vandekar et al. 2016); however, this relationship does not drive higher rejection rate for detection of age when jointly analyzing the two modalities.”

    From Similarity-based multimodal regression (2024) · cites this paper as Vandekar et al. 2016

  • Previous studies of the PNC have demonstrated coupling between cortical thickness and sulcal depth.

    “andthecouplingbetweencorticalthicknessandsulcaldepth(Vandekar et al. 2016)”

    From Similarity-based multimodal regression (2024) · cites this paper as Vandekar et al. 2016

  • Modalities with weak associations can reduce power of a multimodal analysis, even when the correlation between modalities is known to be important.

    “We also observe through our application to PNC cortical structure that modalities with weak associations can reduce power of a multimodal analysis, even when the correlation between modalities is known to be important (Vandekar et al. 2016).”

    From Similarity-based multimodal regression (2024) · cites this paper as Vandekar et al. 2016

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. von Economo C Parker S The Cytoarchitectonics of the Human Cerebral Cortex 1925 London Oxford University Press English translation, 1929

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vandekar, S. N., Shinohara, R. T., Raznahan, A., Hopson, R. D., Roalf, D. R., Ruparel, K., Gur, R. C., Gur, R. E., & Satterthwaite, T. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Vandekar, Simon N.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
133
Pages
88-97
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2291533047
Cited by
27
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH089983, MH089924)
  • Center for Biomedical Computing and Image Analysis (K23MH098130, R01MH107703, R01NS085211, K01MH10260, T32MH065218-11)
  • Dowshen Program for Neuroscience
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
cortical thickness, sulcal depth, cortical development, adolescence, sex differences, neuroimaging phenotypes, Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Cerebral Cortex, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Neuronal Plasticity, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Connectome

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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