Cited by 1,564Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Intrinsic and task-evoked network architectures of the human brain

Open access
Cole, Michael W., Bassett, Danielle S., Power, Jonathan D., Braver, Todd S., Petersen, Steven E.·2014·Neuron

Abstract

Many functional network properties of the human brain have been identified during rest and task states, yet it remains unclear how the two relate. We identified a whole-brain network architecture present across dozens of task states that was highly similar to the resting-state network architecture. The most frequent functional connectivity strengths across tasks closely matched the strengths observed at rest, suggesting this is an "intrinsic," standard architecture of functional brain organization. Furthermore, a set of small but consistent changes common across tasks suggests the existence of a task-general network architecture distinguishing task states from rest. These results indicate the brain's functional network architecture during task performance is shaped primarily by an intrinsic network architecture that is also present during rest, and secondarily by evoked task-general and task-specific network changes. This establishes a strong relationship between resting-state functional connectivity and task-evoked functional connectivity-areas of neuroscientific inquiry typically considered separately.

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.neuron.2014.05.014

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Functional connectivity patterns within and between major resting-state networks strongly predict interregional co-activation across tasks.

    “Patterns of functional connectivity (FC) within and between the major RSNs are increasingly understood as intrinsic properties of brain function, given that they strongly predict patterns of interregional co-activation across different tasks (Cole et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2009)”
  • The connectivity matrices are not dominated by simple coactivation during task blocks.

    “To ensure that the connectivity matrices are not dominated by simple coactivation during the task blocks, we have regressed out the task activation using a general linear model (GLM), consistent with our prior work (23, 35, 47, 52).”
  • The segregation of network modules observed in this data is much more pronounced than that observed in resting-state functional connectivity matrices.

    “The segregation of network modules observed in this data is much more pronounced than that observed in resting-state functional connectivity matrices (23, 36, 37).”
  • Momentary neural coalitions underlie complex cognitive functions, learning, and consciousness.

    “the emergence of momentary neural coalitions forms the basis for complex cognitive functions (Bassett et al., 2015; Cole et al., 2014), learning (Bassett et al., 2011) and consciousness (Barttfeld et al., 2015; Godwin et al., 2015)”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cole, M. W., Bassett, D. S., Power, J. D., Braver, T. S., & Petersen, S. E.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Cole, Michael W.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
83
Issue
1
Pages
238-251
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002627566
Cited by
1,564
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 97 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 155 · 2021: 170 · 2020: 165 · 2019: 176 · 2018: 138 · 2017: 122 · 2016: 96 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 1
FWCI
56.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Minnesota
  • National Institutes of Health (5u54mh091657-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (1U54 MH091657, U54-MH091657, K99MH096801, K99-R00 MH096801, R00MH096801)
  • NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
resting-state functional connectivity, functional brain networks, task performance
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Psychomotor Performance, Rest, Young Adult

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