Cited by 162Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain function

State-dependent variability of dynamic functional connectivity between frontoparietal and default networks relates to cognitive flexibility

Open access
Douw, Linda, Wakeman, Daniel G., Tanaka, Naoaki, Liu, Hesheng, Stufflebeam, Steven M.·2016·Neuroscience

Abstract

The brain is a dynamic, flexible network that continuously reconfigures. However, the neural underpinnings of how state-dependent variability of dynamic functional connectivity (vdFC) relates to cognitive flexibility are unclear. We therefore investigated flexible functional connectivity during resting-state and task-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI and t-fMRI, resp.) and performed separate, out-of-scanner neuropsychological testing. We hypothesize that state-dependent vdFC between the frontoparietal network (FPN) and the default mode network (DMN) relates to cognitive flexibility. Seventeen healthy subjects performed the Stroop color word test and underwent t-fMRI (Stroop computerized version) and rs-fMRI. Time series were extracted from a cortical atlas, and a sliding window approach was used to obtain a number of correlation matrices per subject. vdFC was defined as the standard deviation of connectivity strengths over these windows. Higher task-state FPN-DMN vdFC was associated with greater out-of-scanner cognitive flexibility, while the opposite relationship was present for resting-state FPN-DMN vdFC. Moreover, greater contrast between task-state and resting-state vdFC related to better cognitive performance. In conclusion, our results suggest that not only the dynamics of connectivity between these networks is seminal for optimal functioning, but also that the contrast between dynamics across states reflects cognitive performance.

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.neuroscience.2016.09.034

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • Interactions between the medial frontoparietal network and the lateral frontoparietal network are associated with cognitive flexibility.

    “Dynamics between the default mode or medial frontoparietal network (M-FPN) and the L-FPN have also been linked to cognitive flexibility46.”
  • Time-varying but not static functional connectivity of the midcingulo-insular network, as well as dynamics between the default mode/medial frontoparietal network and lateral frontoparietal network, has been shown to predict individual differences in cognitive flexibility.

    “Time-varying (but not static) functional connectivity of the M-CIN (109), as well as dynamics between the default mode/medial frontoparietal network (M-FPN) and L-FPN (110), has been shown to predict individual differences in cognitive flexibility.”

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
Douw, L., Wakeman, D. G., Tanaka, N., Liu, H., & Stufflebeam, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Douw, Linda
Venue
Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
339
Pages
12-21
ISSN
0306-4522 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2524362044
Cited by
162
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Research Resources (S10RR014978)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-NS069696, 5R01-NS060918, U01MH093765, S10RR023043, S10RR023401)
  • National Science Foundation (1042134)
  • Dutch Organization for Scientific Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
dynamic functional connectivity, cognitive flexibility, frontoparietal network, default mode network, resting-state functional connectivity, Stroop task, network dynamics, cognitive performance
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Rest, Cohort Studies, Executive Function, Stroop Test

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