Cited by 82Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsNeural dynamics and brain function

Laminar fMRI and computational theories of brain function

Stephan, K.E., Petzschner, F.H., Kasper, L., Bayer, J., Wellstein, K.V., Stefanics, G., Pruessmann, K.P., Heinzle, J.·2019·NeuroImage

Abstract

Recently developed methods for functional MRI at the resolution of cortical layers (laminar fMRI) offer a novel window into neurophysiological mechanisms of cortical activity. Beyond physiology, laminar fMRI also offers an unprecedented opportunity to test influential theories of brain function. Specifically, hierarchical Bayesian theories of brain function, such as predictive coding, assign specific computational roles to different cortical layers. Combined with computational models, laminar fMRI offers a unique opportunity to test these proposals noninvasively in humans. This review provides a brief overview of predictive coding and related hierarchical Bayesian theories, summarises their predictions with regard to layered cortical computations, examines how these predictions could be tested by laminar fMRI, and considers methodological challenges. We conclude by discussing the potential of laminar fMRI for clinically useful computational assays of layer-specific information processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Laminar profiling of expectation effects can help to distinguish between computational theories of perception.

    “In addition to establishing the directionality of signal flow, laminar profiling of expectation effects can also help to distinguish between computational theories of perception [148].”

    From How Do Expectations Shape Perception? (2018) · cites this paper as [148]

  • Technological advances in the measurement of multisite activity with laminar precision may afford the precision required to better understand the information flow within and between cortical modules, thereby constraining neurocomputational theories of perceptual inference.

    “Finally, technological advances in the measurement of multisite activity with laminar precision [147,148] may afford the precision required to better understand the information flow within and between cortical modules, thereby constraining neurocomputational theories of perceptual inference.”

    From How Do Expectations Shape Perception? (2018) · cites this paper as [148]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 110 · Cited by 82

Authors
Stephan, K. E., Petzschner, F. H., Kasper, L., Bayer, J., Wellstein, K. V., Stefanics, G., Pruessmann, K. P., & Heinzle, J.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Stephan, K.E.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
197
Pages
699-706
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765803441
Cited by
82
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Universität Zürich
  • René und Susanne Braginsky Stiftung
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
laminar fMRI, cortical layers, predictive coding, Bayesian hierarchical model
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Computer Simulation, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Functional Neuroimaging

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