Laminar fMRI and computational theories of brain function
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.
- ORCID
- 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