The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 78 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Spontaneous neuronal activity distinguishes human dorsal and ventral attention systems
Open accessAbstract
On the basis of task-related imaging studies in normal human subjects, it has been suggested that two attention systems exist in the human brain: a bilateral dorsal attention system involved in top-down orienting of attention and a right-lateralized ventral attention system involved in reorienting attention in response to salient sensory stimuli. An important question is whether this functional organization emerges only in response to external attentional demands or is represented more fundamentally in the internal dynamics of brain activity. To address this question, we examine correlations in spontaneous fluctuations of the functional MRI blood oxygen level-dependent signal in the absence of task, stimuli, or explicit attentional demands. We identify a bilateral dorsal attention system and a right-lateralized ventral attention system solely on the basis of spontaneous activity. Further, we observe regions in the prefrontal cortex correlated with both systems, a potential mechanism for mediating the functional interaction between systems. These findings demonstrate that the neuroanatomical substrates of human attention persist in the absence of external events, reflected in the correlation structure of spontaneous activity.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Spontaneous BOLD fluctuations in resting-state fMRI are sufficient to recover the dorsal and ventral human attention systems, with the dorsal system bilateral and the ventral system right-lateralized. The two systems are largely segregated, with prefrontal overlap suggesting a possible interaction site.
Key findings
- Four attention seed regions—IPS and FEF (dorsal), TPJ and VFC (ventral)—partition into two systems on the basis of spontaneous activity: IPS/FEF and TPJ/VFC correlations were significantly stronger than any other region pair (all region pairs not equally correlated, F(5,45)=23.70, P<0.0001; pairwise P<0.005).
- Correlation-map similarity and overlap also separated the systems: spatial correlation across maps differed significantly (F(5,45)=15.54, P<0.0001), as did fractional overlap (F(5,45)=17.04, P<0.0001), with IPS/FEF and TPJ/VFC pairs most similar/overlapping.
- Dorsal maps were bilateral, whereas ventral maps were right-lateralized: laterality differed by spatial correlation (F(3,27)=28.28, P<0.0001) and fractional overlap (F(3,27)=39.79, P<0.0001); IPS/FEF maps were significantly more bilateral than VFC/TPJ maps (spatial correlation P<0.05; overlap P<0.006).
- Intrinsically defined dorsal and ventral systems were largely segregated; overlap regions were found in right middle frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, and inferior parietal cortex, with the prefrontal regions suggested as possible interaction sites after controlling for nonneuronal factors.
Methods
- Functional MRI data were acquired in 10 normal subjects during three resting conditions: visual fixation on a crosshair, eyes open during low-level illumination, and eyes closed; these data had been used previously in a study of anticorrelated functional networks.
- Seed regions for IPS, FEF, TPJ, and VFC were defined from a meta-analysis of previous task-based attention studies, and seed-based correlation analyses were performed on preprocessed resting-state data.
- Main analyses used temporal correlation, spatial correlation, and fractional overlap, with random-effects analysis across the population and a significance threshold of P<0.01; systems were defined by conjunction across all three resting-state conditions.
Limitations
- Stated: the exact nature of spontaneous BOLD fluctuations is unknown, and unconstrained behavior/cognition during rest cannot be ruled out as a source of some spontaneous BOLD activity, although the paper argues it is unlikely to be the predominant source.
- Stated: the inferior parietal overlap region may be attributable to nonneuronal factors such as averaging, spatial resolution, or locally coherent noise, unlike the prefrontal overlap regions.
- Evident: the sample is small (10 subjects), the seed regions are derived from prior task-based studies, and the resting-state correlation design cannot establish directionality or causality between systems or link spontaneous fluctuations directly to attentional performance.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
36 Not checked yet · 20 Own result · 10 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given · 1 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We performed this analysis and found that the intrinsically defined dorsal system, ventral system, and overlap are consistent across resting-state conditions (Fig. 11, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a significant difference in laterality by using both the spatial correlation coefficient [F(3,27) ϭ 28.28; P Ͻ 0.0001] and the fractional overlap [F(3,27) ϭ 39.79; P Ͻ 0.0001] measures.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These systems appear to be largely segregated in their spatial topography, with only small regions of overlap in the prefrontal cortex.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main finding in the current study is that the functional organization of the dorsal and ventral attention systems is represented in the correlation structure of spontaneous activity.”
- Also stated in: § Why Task-Related Activity Patterns Might be Reflected in Spontane- · boosted
“The current study demonstrates that the dorsal͞ ventral attention model defined on the basis of externally imposed tasks with specific attentional demands is reflected in the correlation structure of ongoing spontaneous activity.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Why Task-Related Activity Patterns Might be Reflected in Spontane- · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we showed that spontaneous activity is more correlated between regions within the dorsal or ventral system than between systems.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we constructed voxelwise maps of the dorsal and ventral systems defined solely on the basis of spontaneous activity, largely reproducing the spatial topography of the dorsal and ventral attention systems hypothesized on the basis of task-activation paradigms.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The intrinsically defined ventral attention system also is broadly consistent with the original task-based model of attention.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important result of the present analysis is that the intrinsically defined dorsal and ventral attention systems are largely segregated in their spatial distribution.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an alternative to the IPS͞TPJ link, regions correlated with both the dorsal and ventral attention systems were found in the right middle frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, and inferior parietal lobe.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the intrinsic correlation between these two regions was no stronger than that between the FEF͞TPJ, IPS͞VFC, or FEF͞VFC.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identify a bilateral dorsal attention system and a right-lateralized ventral attention system solely on the basis of spontaneous activity.”
- Also stated in: § Quantitative Partitioning of Regions on the Basis of Spontaneous · boosted
“Taken together, these analyses demonstrate that the four attention regions are not equally related in their spontaneous BOLD fluctuations but rather should be partitioned into two distinct systems consisting of the IPS͞FEF and the TPJ͞VFC.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“Using this approach, we have shown that attentional regions can be partitioned into a bilateral dorsal attention system and a rightlateralized ventral attention system solely on the basis of spontaneous activity.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Quantitative Partitioning of Regions on the Basis of Spontaneous · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second observation is that correlations with the IPS and FEF are largely bilateral, whereas correlations with the TPJ and VFC are much more unilateral and largely limited to the right hemisphere.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All map pairs were not equally correlated (F(5,45) ϭ 15.54; P Ͻ 0.0001), with the IPS͞FEF and the TPJ͞VFC correlation maps being the most similar.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All region pairs were not correlated equally (F(5,45) ϭ 23.70; P Ͻ 0.0001), with the IPS͞FEF correlation and TPJ͞VFC correlation being significantly stronger than the correlation between any other region pair (P Ͻ 0.005, paired t test).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the IPS and FEF correlation maps appear similar and the TPJ and VFC correlation maps appear similar, but the IPS͞FEF correlation maps appear quite distinct from the TPJ͞VFC correlation maps.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The largest region of overlap was in the right middle frontal gyrus with additional regions in the inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal cortex.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These factors appear to contribute to the overlap region in the inferior parietal cortex but not the other two, suggesting that the prefrontal cortex (middle and inferior frontal gyrus) may be an important locus of functional interaction between dorsal and ventral attention systems.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in contrast to the model, the intrinsically defined dorsal attention system extends beyond IPS and FEF and includes a midline supplementary motor area (SMA)͞pre-SMA region and MTϩ.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we demonstrated that correlations in the dorsal system are bilateral, whereas those in the ventral system are lateralized to the right hemisphere.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our intrinsically defined dorsal system is consistent with the task-based model in that it includes IPS and FEF and is largely bilateral.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is largely right-lateralized and includes TPJ and VFC as well as other right frontal areas.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The ventral system is rightlateralized and composed of the right temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) and the right ventral frontal cortex (VFC).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the basis of behavioral, neuroimaging, lesion, and electrophysiological studies, a model has been proposed that suggests that different attentional operations during sensory orienting are carried out by two separate frontoparietal systems, a dorsal attention system and a ventral attention system (for review, see ref. 4).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“On the basis of task-related imaging studies in normal human subjects, it has been suggested that two attention systems exist in the human brain: a bilateral dorsal attention system involved in top-down orienting of attention and a right-lateralized ventral attention system involved in reorienting attention in response to salient sensory stimuli.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Activity increases also are observed in the ventral system after abrupt changes in sensory stimuli (15), at the onset and offset of task blocks (16), and at the end of a completed trial (17).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is involved in voluntary (top-down) orienting and shows activity increases after presentation of cues indicating where, when, or to what subjects should direct their attention (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The dorsal system is bilateral and composed of the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and the junction of the precentral and superior frontal sulcus (frontal eye field, FEF) in each hemisphere.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A functional interaction between the dorsal and ventral system has been proposed such that task-relevant signals from the dorsal system ''filter'' stimulus-driven signals in the ventral system, whereas stimulus-driven ''circuit-breaking'' signals from the ventral system provide an interrupt to the dorsal system, reorienting it toward salient stimuli (4,21).”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition to these positive correlations, negative or anticorrelations have been noted between regions routinely modulated in opposite directions by attention demanding tasks (28,35).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This alternative perspective suggests that the brain is active even in the absence of task, primarily driven by internal dynamics, with external events modulating rather than determining the activity of the system (24)(25)(26)(27)(28).”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Correlations have been noted between regions commonly modulated together by task paradigms such as so-matomotor, visual, auditory, language, task-negative͞default, and task-positive regions including the IPS and FEF (28,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Correspondingly, the ventral system reacts more strongly to task-relevant than irrelevant distracters (20) and exhibits activity decreases when subjects search for a difficult target (6).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, coherent spontaneous activity appears to be an important source of trial-to-trial variability in measured brain responses (42,43) and may relate to the trialto-trial variability commonly observed in human behavior (44).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Third, task-evoked activity due to a specific behavior seems to be distinct from and superimposed on top of underlying spontaneous activity (40,42).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, coherent spontaneous activity appears to be an important source of trial-to-trial variability in measured brain responses (42,43) and may relate to the trialto-trial variability commonly observed in human behavior (44).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, SMA͞pre-SMA and MTϩ typically have not been considered part of the dorsal attention system for various reasons.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This extended system is consistent with previous resting-state correlation studies (28,45) and has been dubbed by us the task-positive network (28).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that IPS and FEF seem to share some functionality not present in the more extended network may relate to the stronger intrinsic correlation between these two regions (see Fig. 1).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although previous task-based studies have reported right lateralization of this network (4, 15, 16, 47), we directly test and quantify this laterality on the basis of spontaneous activity.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, an inability of the ventral system to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant stimuli could cause increased distractibility, and an inability of the dorsal system to receive reorienting signals could cause an increase in perseveration.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the intrinsically defined dorsal and ventral attention systems are largely segregated in their spatial topography, the original model and task-related findings suggest that there must be some mechanism of information exchange between them.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Both distractibility and perseveration are hallmarks of prefrontal cortex damage (50).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As noted in the introduction, the ventral system responds more strongly to task-relevant distracters than irrelevant ones (termed contingent reorienting), and the dorsal system exhibits an activity increase in addition to the ventral system when a reorientation of attention is needed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This information exchange has been hypothesized to occur between the right IPS and right TPJ (4).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Consistent with this finding, recent lesion studies suggest that contingent reorienting remains intact and is even enhanced after IPS damage (S.Shomstein, personal communication), suggesting that the IPS is not required for top-down information to reach the ventral attention system.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites S.Shomstein, personal communication
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, regions routinely modulated together during task conditions tend to be strongly correlated in their spontaneous activity and regions modulated in opposite directions tend to be anticorrelated (28).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the region in the parietal lobe may be due to spatial blurring, the two regions in the prefrontal cortex are not, and therefore may represent, important sites of functional interaction between the two systems.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This observation is not without precedent, because the currently identified prefrontal cortex regions have been implicated in sustained attention, vigilance, and both maintaining and updating of a task set (49)(50)(51).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These possibilities are not mutually exclusive, and all may be relevant to understanding why systems defined on the basis of task-related activity patterns, such as the dorsal and ventral attention systems, can be observed in patterns of spontaneous neuronal activity in the absence of task.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that the dorsal and ventral systems are largely segregated may be important for the flexibility observed in the task-response patterns of these two systems, allowing them to be modulated together, independently, or in opposite directions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Coherent spontaneous fluctuations are present continuously across all brain regions.
“Finally, coherent spontaneous fluctuations are present continuously across all brain regions.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Functional pathways critical to vision, motor function, audition, language, reading, and attention are detectable as enhanced FC computed from at rest inter-region oscillatory synchronization determined via functional magnetic resonance imaging (34–42).”
From Elevated functional connectivity along a corticostriatal loop and the mechanism of auditory/verbal hallucinations in patients with schizophrenia (2011) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006837 · Cited by 13,680
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881
Self-citationAn Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo‐planar mri
Biswal, B., Zerrin Yetkin, F., Haughton, V. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1995) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1910340409 · Cited by 9,812
The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504136102 · Cited by 8,553
Self-citationNeural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 · Cited by 8,388
The attention system of the human brain
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325 · Cited by 8,070
Neuronal Oscillations in Cortical Networks
Buzsáki, G., & Draguhn, A. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1099745 · Cited by 6,576
Functional connectivity in the resting brain: a network analysis of the default mode hypothesis
Greicius, M. D., Krasnow, B., Reiss, A. L., & Menon, V. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0135058100 · Cited by 6,358
Llinás, R. R. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3059497 · Cited by 2,285
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- D. Cordes, V. M. Haughton, K. Arfanakis, G. J. Wendt, P. A. Turski, C. H. Moritz, M. A. Quigley, M. E. Meyerand Am. J. Neuroradiol. 21, 1636–1644 (2000).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,006 of 1,006
Identifying with fictive characters: structural brain correlates of the personality trait ‘fantasy’
Cheetham, M., Hänggi, J., & Jancke, L. (2014) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nst179 · Cited by 25
Liu, Z., de Zwart, J. A., Chang, C., Duan, Q., van Gelderen, P., & Duyn, J. H. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht164 · Cited by 22
Basile, G. A., Tatti, E., Bertino, S., Milardi, D., Genovese, G., Bruno, A., Muscatello, M. R. A., Ciurleo, R., Cerasa, A., Quartarone, A., et al. (2024) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-024-02781-9 · Cited by 24
“…cingulate cortex, the anterior insula, the superior temporal gyrus, and the amygdala (Seeley et al. 2007; Yeo et al. 2011; Gordon et al. 2017; Seeley 2019), though the involvement of supramarginal gyrus and premotor cortices have been also reported (Fox et al. 2006; Corbetta and Shulman 2011).”
BackgroundHardcastle, C., Hausman, H. K., Kraft, J. N., Albizu, A., O’Shea, A., Boutzoukas, E. M., Evangelista, N. D., Langer, K., Van Etten, E. J., Bharadwaj, P. K., et al. (2022) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-022-00535-1 · Cited by 22
Geller, W. N., Liu, K., & Warren, S. L. (2021) · Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2021.111349 · Cited by 18
Episodic Memory in Healthy Older Adults: The Role of Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices
Rajah, M. N., Maillet, D., & Grady, C. L. (2015) · The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory · doi:10.1002/9781118332634.ch17 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Fox, M. D., Corbetta, M., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., & Raichle, M. E.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2006-06-27
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 10046-10051
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2045758998
- Semantic Scholar
- b38a6ee957f3ce59a88e21d93d8f3e82d6da7909
- Cited by
- 2,101
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 122 · 2021: 127 · 2020: 190 · 2019: 132 · 2018: 132 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 118 · 2015: 118 · 2014: 129 · 2013: 122 · 2012: 116
- FWCI
- 24.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2006-09-05)
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5f30ns054398-02, NS06833)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH 7192-06, R01MH071920)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F30 NS 054398-01, F30 NS-054398, NS 048013, R01NS048013, P50NS006833, NS 06833)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- spontaneous neuronal activity, resting-state brain activity, top-down attention, prefrontal cortex, functional connectivity, hemispheric lateralization, attentional control
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Brain Mapping, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neurons, Oxygen, Prefrontal Cortex
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
