Cited by 133Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

Intrinsic network architecture predicts the effects elicited by intracranial electrical stimulation of the human brain

Open access
Fox, Kieran C. R., Shi, Lin, Baek, Sori, Raccah, Omri, Foster, Brett L., Saha, Srijani, Margulies, Daniel S., Kucyi, Aaron +1 more·2020·Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract

Intracranial electrical stimulation (iES) of the human brain has long been known to elicit a remarkable variety of perceptual, motor and cognitive effects, but the functional-anatomical basis of this heterogeneity remains poorly understood. We conducted a whole-brain mapping of iES-elicited effects, collecting first-person reports following iES at 1,537 cortical sites in 67 participants implanted with intracranial electrodes. We found that intrinsic network membership and the principal gradient of functional connectivity strongly predicted the type and frequency of iES-elicited effects in a given brain region. While iES in unimodal brain networks at the base of the cortical hierarchy elicited frequent and simple effects, effects became increasingly rare, heterogeneous and complex in heteromodal and transmodal networks higher in the hierarchy. Our study provides a comprehensive exploration of the relationship between the hierarchical organization of intrinsic functional networks and the causal modulation of human behaviour and experience with iES.

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 · 10.1038/s41562-020-0910-1

Cites

98 of 98 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?

  • A recent study with a large cohort of iES patients (n = 67) found exclusively null effects in frontopolar cortex.

    “And as noted above, a recent study we conducted with a large cohort of iES patients (n = 67) likewise found exclusively null effects in frontopolar cortex (Fox et al., 2020).”

    From Does the Prefrontal Cortex Play an Essential Role in Consciousness? Insights from Intracranial Electrical Stimulation of the Human Brain (2021) · cites this paper as Fox et al., 2020

    The Results report iES data from 67 patients, and the Discussion describes the anterior prefrontal cortex as showing “almost total quiescence.” That supports predominantly null findings in the region, but not the stronger claim that effects were exclusively null. The paper also limits its observations to stimulation during a task-free resting state; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent work across dozens of patients, from the authors' own group and others, indicates only null results in anteromedial prefrontal regions.

    “We are not aware of any past research that reports iESinduced phenomenal changes in these regions (Selimbeyoglu and Parvizi, 2010), and recent work across dozens of patients, from both our own group (Fox et al., 2020) and others (Trevisi et al., 2018), indicates only null results in these areas.”

    From Does the Prefrontal Cortex Play an Essential Role in Consciousness? Insights from Intracranial Electrical Stimulation of the Human Brain (2021) · cites this paper as Fox et al., 2020

    The Methods (Patient characteristics; page unavailable) report a 67-patient sample. The Discussion (page unavailable) says effects in the core medial prefrontal cortex were “almost entirely absent,” supporting a predominantly null finding, but not the claim that results in these areas were only null; the paper also does not say that dozens of patients had stimulation in those specific regions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is no part of the brain wherein iES is less likely to cause a noticeable change in consciousness than the most anterior regions of the PFC.

    “Indeed, there is no part of the brain wherein iES is less likely to cause a noticeable change in consciousness than the most anterior regions of the PFC (Fox et al., 2020) (Figs. 2 and 3).”

    From Does the Prefrontal Cortex Play an Essential Role in Consciousness? Insights from Intracranial Electrical Stimulation of the Human Brain (2021) · cites this paper as Fox et al., 2020

    The Discussion (page not provided) describes “almost total quiescence” following iES in some regions, especially the anterior prefrontal cortex, supporting the claim that noticeable effects there were particularly rare. But the paper does not establish that it is less likely to elicit an effect than every other part of the brain: its comparisons are primarily across sampled cortical networks, and the Methods say subcortical regions were excluded. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The low elicitation rate (17%) in OFC is in marked contrast to unimodal brain regions, where positive response rates can reach 67%.

    “This low elicitation rate (17%) is in marked contrast to unimodal brain regions, where positive response rates can reach 67% (Fox et al., 2020).”

    From Does the Prefrontal Cortex Play an Essential Role in Consciousness? Insights from Intracranial Electrical Stimulation of the Human Brain (2021) · cites this paper as Fox et al., 2020

    The Results section reports markedly higher elicitation rates in unimodal somatomotor and visual networks than in lower-rate networks, supporting the comparison. It gives rates of 55% and 52% for those unimodal networks, however, and the passages available from our copy do not establish a 67% rate. The paper also does not establish the citing document’s 17% OFC figure in these passages. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sham stimulation is a very effective control for demand characteristics in iES.

    “Sham stimulation is used to control for demand characteristics, especially when meaningful or intense experiences are reported, and has proven to be a very effective control (Fox and Parvizi, 2021;Fox et al., 2020).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [27]Damasio AR & Damasio H in Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain (eds Koch & Davis JL) 61– 74 (MIT Press, 1994).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fox, K. C. R., Shi, L., Baek, S., Raccah, O., Foster, B. L., Saha, S., Margulies, D. S., Kucyi, A., & Parvizi, J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Fox, Kieran C. R.
  • Parvizi, Josef
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2020-07-06
Volume
4
Issue
10
Pages
1039-1052
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3039362686
Cited by
133
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 5
FWCI
11.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • China Scholarship Council (201708110057)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (R00MH103479, 1P50MH109429)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
intracranial electrical stimulation, cortical hierarchy, functional connectivity gradients, network membership, first-person reports, perceptual effects, motor effects, cognitive effects
MeSH terms
Drug Resistant Epilepsy, Electrocorticography, Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Electric Stimulation, Epilepsies, Partial, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, 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