Cited by 328Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesComplex Network Analysis TechniquesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Comparative connectomics

Open access
van den Heuvel, Martijn P., Bullmore, Edward T., Sporns, Olaf·2016·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

We introduce comparative connectomics, the quantitative study of cross-species commonalities and variations in brain network topology that aims to discover general principles of network architecture of nervous systems and the identification of species-specific features of brain connectivity. By comparing connectomes derived from simple to more advanced species, we identify two conserved themes of wiring: the tendency to organize network topology into communities that serve specialized functionality and the general drive to enable high topological integration by means of investment of neural resources in short communication paths, hubs, and rich clubs. Within the space of wiring possibilities that conform to these common principles, we argue that differences in connectome organization between closely related species support adaptations in cognition and behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.001

Cites

168 of 168 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Global integration is an important candidate mechanism for the evolution of complex brain networks and for explaining how the brain creates complex, adaptive behavior.

    “As such, global integration is an important candidate mechanism responsible for the evolution of complex brain networks (van den Heuvel et al., 2016), and hence, for explaining the mechanism through which the brain creates complex, adaptive behavior.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Heuvel, M. P., Bullmore, E. T., & Sporns, O.
Affiliations
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
345-361
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4211147837
Cited by
328
References
168
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0513-10051)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
brain network topology, cross-species comparison, network communities, hubs, rich club
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Communication, Nerve Net, Species Specificity, 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