Cited by 17Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsCognitive Abilities and Testing

Structural-functional brain network coupling during cognitive demand reveals intelligence-relevant communication strategies

Open access
Popp, Johanna L., Thiele, Jonas A., Faskowitz, Joshua, Seguin, Caio, Sporns, Olaf, Hilger, Kirsten·2025·Communications Biology

Abstract

Intelligence is a broad mental capability influencing human performance across tasks. Individual differences in intelligence have been linked to characteristics of structural and functional brain networks. Here, we consider their alignment, the structural-functional brain network coupling (SC-FC coupling) during resting state and during active cognition, to predict general intelligence. Using diffusion-weighted and functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 764 participants of the Human Connectome Project (replication: N 1 = 126, N 2 = 180), we model SC-FC coupling with similarity and communication measures that capture functional interactions unfolding on top of structural brain networks. By accounting for variations in brain region-specific neural signaling strategies, we show that individual differences in SC-FC coupling patterns predict individual intelligence scores. Most robust predictions result from cognitively demanding tasks and task combinations. Our study suggests the existence of an intrinsic SC-FC coupling organization enabling fine-drawn intelligence-relevant adaptations that support efficient information processing by facilitating brain region-specific adjustment to external task demands.

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/s42003-025-08231-4

Cites

109 of 109 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?

  • More recent analyses show that structure-function coupling is regionally heterogeneous, changes across development, and relates to cognitive performance, implying that physical wiring constrains but does not determine brain dynamics.

    “More recent analyses show that structure–function coupling is regionally heterogeneous, changes across development, and relates to cognitive performance, implying that physical wiring constrains but does not determine brain dynamics (G. Feng et al., 2024; Popp et al., 2025).”

    From 40 Years of diffusion MRI in the brain: From history to emerging frontiers (2026) · cites this paper as Popp et al., 2025

    The Results and Discussion (page numbers unavailable in our copy) describe regional differences in coupling, task-dependent adaptations, and associations with intelligence. These support the claim that structural wiring shapes but does not fully determine functional dynamics. The paper does not report developmental changes in coupling; its Methods describe young-adult samples, and development appears only in reference titles. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [59]Raven, J. C., Court, J. H. & Raven, J. Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: Standard Progressive Matrices (Oxford Psychologists Press, 1996).
  2. [82]Haier, R. J. The Neuroscience of Intelligence10.1017/9781316105771 (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
  3. [101]Dhollander, T. et al. Multi-tissue log-domain intensity and inhomogeneity normalisation for quantitative apparent fibre density. In Proc. 29th Int. Soc. Magn. Reson. Med. Vol. 29, 2472 (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Popp, J. L., Thiele, J. A., Faskowitz, J., Seguin, C., Sporns, O., & Hilger, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Popp, Johanna L.
  • Hilger, Kirsten
Venue
Communications Biology
Published
2025-06-04
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
855-855
ISSN
2399-3642 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411041856
Cited by
17
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 3
FWCI
9.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Online Publication Service of Würzburg University (Würzburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HI 2185 – 1/3)
  • Publikationsfond der Universität Würzburg
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
general intelligence, individual differences in intelligence, resting-state brain networks, task demands, cognitive demand, communication strategies, diffusion-weighted imaging, functional MRI, Human Connectome Project
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Cognition, Communication, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Young Adult, 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