The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 10 are not checked yet; none of the 62 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Dynamic reconfiguration of frontal brain networks during executive cognition in humans
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Cognitive flexibility is hypothesized to require dynamic integration between brain areas. However, the time-dependent nature and distributed complexity of this integration remains poorly understood. Using recent advances in network science, we examine the functional integration between brain areas during a quintessential task that requires executive function. By linking brain regions (nodes) by their interactions (time-dependent edges), we uncover nontrivial modular structure: groups of brain regions cluster together into densely interconnected structures whose interactions change during task execution. Individuals with greater network reconfiguration in frontal cortices show enhanced memory performance, and score higher on neuropsychological tests challenging cognitive flexibility, suggesting that dynamic network reconfiguration forms a fundamental neurophysiological mechanism for executive function.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 10 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using dynamic network neuroscience on fMRI data from 344 healthy adults performing an n-back working-memory task, the study shows that executive cognition involves transient reconfiguration of frontal brain networks rather than uniform whole-brain flexibility. Greater frontal flexibility and integration were linked to better working-memory accuracy and executive-flexibility measures.
Key findings
- Whole-brain network flexibility oscillated across task execution and differed by condition [repeated-measures ANOVA: F(2,343) = 20.75, P < 0.001], but whole-brain flexibility did not differ between 2-back and 0-back [t(343) = 1.31, P = 0.19].
- Reconfiguration was concentrated in frontal systems: frontal vs. nonfrontal consensus partitions were less similar [t(343) = −10.32, P < 0.001], and frontal-related modules showed higher flexibility than nonfrontal modules in 2-back [F(8,343) = 29.95, P < 0.001; post hoc t(343) = 9.42, P < 0.001] and 0-back [F(7,343) = 11.75, P < 0.001; post hoc t(343) = 4.98, P < 0.001].
- During 2-back, frontal flexibility correlated with task accuracy (Spearman r = 0.12, PFDR-corrected = 0.04, PBonferroni = 0.2), and frontal integration correlated with task accuracy (r = 0.14, PFDR-corrected = 0.024, PBonferroni = 0.096), backward digit span (r = 0.14, PFDR-corrected = 0.024, PBonferroni = 0.072), and TMT-B performance (r = −0.18, PFDR-corrected = 0.016, PBonferroni = 0.016), but not forward digit span (r = 0.004, PFDR-corrected = 0.95, PBonferroni = 1.0).
Methods
- 344 healthy volunteers (180 women; mean age 33; range 18–51 y) from a multicenter study underwent BOLD fMRI while performing a visual n-back task with alternating 0-back and 2-back blocks.
- Functional connectivity was estimated using a sliding time window of 15 volumes with no gap and Morlet wavelet coherence in the 0.08–0.15 Hz band, yielding 114 weighted adjacency matrices per subject.
- Multilayer community detection with 100 repetitions per subject identified time-respecting modules; flexibility measured how often a region changed module allegiance between consecutive windows, and integration measured transient module–module interactions. Behavioral associations used Spearman correlations with FDR and Bonferroni correction.
Limitations
- The paper states that dynamic community detection is heuristic and node-to-community assignments remain uncertain; fMRI temporal resolution limits dynamic resolution; functional connectivity is not causal; hard partitioning is used; the n-back task cannot distinguish working-memory maintenance from manipulation; and behavioral correlations are small, with some failing Bonferroni correction.
- The study sample is healthy adults, so the findings may not generalize to clinical populations such as schizophrenia or dementia, which the paper mentions as relevant future contexts.
- The reported behavioral effects are exploratory in part, and the paper cautions that they should be validated in future studies.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
52 Own result · 34 Not checked yet · 25 Own interpretation · 9 Own method · 4 No basis given
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
“Several modules were consistently identified in both the 0-back and 2-back conditions: somatomotor, visual, subcortical, and hippocampal modules.”
plain- 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.
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 observed that the time-dependent network flexibility oscillates across task execution, reaching clear maxima in time windows dominated by either the 2-back or 0-back (baseline) conditions [Fig. 1F; repeated-measures ANOVA with condition as factor: F(2,343) = 20.75, P < 0.001].”
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.
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
“During the 2-back working-memory condition, frontal flexibility was positively correlated with task accuracy (Fig. 3A; Spearman's rank correlation coefficient r = 0.12, PFDR-corrected = 0.04, PBonferroni = 0.2),”
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
“This pattern was conserved during the 0-back condition [F(7,343) = 11.75, P < 0.001; post hoc paired t test between fronto-related and nonfrontal modules: t(343) = 4.98, P < 0.001].”
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
“A paired t test on the z score for frontal vs. nonfrontal regions showed a significantly higher similarity for nonfrontal regions [t(343) = −10.32, P < 0.001], supporting the visually marked differences between frontal and nonfrontal modules.”
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, flexibility was more evenly distributed in the 0-back condition between systems as evidenced by a significant main effect of task and significant interaction in a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA with task and frontal vs. nonfrontal as categorical factors [main effect of task: F(1,343) = 6.25, P < 0.013; effect of interaction: F(1,343) = 16.5, P < 0.001].”
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
“This reconfiguration, which characterizes “network flexibility,” employs transient and heterogeneous connectivity between frontal systems, which we refer to as “integration.””
plaindirectn = 344- 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
“Consistent with our earlier results, we observed higher integration in frontal systems than nonfrontal systems in the 2-back condition,”
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
“Second, in the 2-back condition a module consisting of nodes in the right prefrontal cortex dissociated from the bilateral frontotemporal module detected during the 0-back condition.”
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
“Frontal integration predicted neuropsychological measures requiring working memory and executive cognition, suggesting that dynamic network reconfiguration between frontal systems supports those functions.”
plaincorrelationaln = 344- 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
“During the 2-back condition, flexibility was highest in fronto-related systems [repeated-measures ANOVA with modules as categorical factor: F(8,343) = 29.95, P < 0.001; post hoc paired t test between frontal-related and nonfrontal modules: t(343) = 9.42, P < 0.001].”
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
“whereas in the 0-back condition we observed similar integration in both frontal and occipital-parietal systems (Fig. 2D).”
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
“in the 2-back condition, this module also prominently included several regions in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex that were missing in the control condition.”
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
“This increase in brain-wide flexibility was not modulated by cognitive load: whole-brain flexibility was not significantly different between the 2-back and 0-back conditions [post hoc paired t test: t(343) = 1.31, P = 0.19].”
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
“Interestingly, in our data, we also observed that the default mode network showed a similarly high network flexibility [paired t test between the flexibility of the frontoparietal network vs. the flexibility of the default mode network: t(343) = −0.44, P = 0.66].”
plain- 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.
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 again saw that network flexibility displays an oscillatory pattern across the experiment.”
plain- 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.
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 further reliably find that frontal regions are more flexible than nonfrontal regions [two-way repeated-measures ANOVA with (i) task and (ii) frontal vs. nonfrontal as categorical factors: main effect of frontal vs. nonfrontal, F(1,343) = 196.8, P < 0.001].”
boostedcorrelational- 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.
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
“In both task conditions, nodes in frontal modules showed an increased flexibility in comparison with the rest of the brain [paired t test, frontal vs. nonfrontal regions: 0-back: t(343) = 4.98, P < 0.001; 2-back: t(343) = 9.42, P < 0.001].”
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
“when comparing flexibility between 0-back and 2-back conditions in the anatomically defined frontal regions, we found a significant difference [paired t test, frontal flexibility during 0-back vs. frontal flexibility during 2-back: t(343) = 2.0, P = 0.045].”
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 highly stable modules also display relatively low flexibility across both n-back task conditions (Supporting Information),”
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
“During the 2-back condition, frontal integration was positively correlated with task accuracy (Fig. 3B; Spearman's rank correlation coefficient r = 0.14, PFDR-corrected = 0.024, PBonferroni = 0.096),”
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
“Flexibility is greater in frontal systems in the 2-back condition as opposed to the 0-back condition, consistent with other recent studies using different tasks (23, 31, 33), adding evidence for a domain-general role of these 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
“We examined both digit span measures and observed that frontal integration was positively correlated with backward digit span score (Fig. 3C; r = 0.14, PFDR-corrected = 0.024, PBonferroni = 0.072)”
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
“but not the forward digit span score (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient r = 0.004, PFDR-corrected = 0.95, PBonferroni = 1.0).”
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
“in fact, nonfrontal modules including visual and somatomotor modules are identical in node composition in 0-back and 2-back conditions.”
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
“Indeed, the mean correlation coefficient between consecutive coherence matrices (constructed from windows of size 15 TRs) was r = 0.81.”
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
“In our data, we observed that frontoparietal networks showed higher flexibility than the mean flexibility of the rest of the brain [paired t test between the network flexibility of the frontoparietal network vs. the network flexibility of the remainder of the brain: t(343) = 6.97, P < 0.001].”
plain- 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.
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 module that we have referred to as the “subcortical module” incorporates brain regions affiliated with both Power’s subcortical and auditory modules.”
plaincorrelational- 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.
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 observed that frontal integration was negatively correlated with TMT-B performance (Fig. 3D; Spearman's rank correlation coefficient r = −0.18, PFDR-corrected = 0.016, PBonferroni = 0.016),”
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
“Although we did not detect any differences in the whole-brain average flexibility between the two task conditions”
plain- 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.
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
“Using FDR correction methods for multiple-comparisons testing, we observed that frontal flexibility and integration were correlated with working-memory accuracy during the 2-back condition.”
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
“The observed network modules displayed significantly different flexibility in both task conditions [repeated-measures ANOVA with modules as factor: 0-back: F(7,343) = 11.75, P < 0.001; 2-back: F(8,343) = 29.95, P < 0.001]”
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
“Second, we again observed that frontal regions were more flexible than nonfrontal regions [repeated-measures ANOVA with (i) task and (ii) frontal vs. nonfrontal as categorical factors: main effect of frontal vs. nonfrontal, F(1,343) = 64.6, P < 0.001].”
plaincorrelational- 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.
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
“Indeed, this hypothesis is supported by the fact that frontal integration was associated with both the backward digit span scores (measuring active information manipulation) and TMT-B scores (measuring executive flexibility),”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The segregation of network modules observed in this data is much more pronounced than that observed in resting-state functional connectivity matrices (23, 36, 37).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Cole MW, Bassett DS, Power JD, Braver TS, Petersen SE. Intrinsic and task-evoked network architectures of the human brain. Neuron. 2014;83(1):238–251. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [36] Power JD, et al. Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron. 2011;72(4):665–678. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Meunier D, Achard S, Morcom A, Bullmore E. Age-related changes in modular organization of human brain functional networks. Neuroimage. 2009;44(3):715–723. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- 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.
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, these relationships do explain additional variance in comparison with more traditional approaches, highlighting the importance of small contributions to the highly complex phenotype of brain network dynamics.”
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
“Using a previously undefined measure of time-dependent network flexibility, we show that the brain reconfigures in an oscillatory manner as participants switch between different task conditions,”
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.
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 observe that functional connectivity patterns display strong community structure, as evidenced by the block-diagonal structure of the module allegiance matrices represented in Fig. 2B.”
boosted- 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
“we did observe differences in the distribution of regional flexibility values across the brain.”
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
“Classical graph statistics such as the weighted path length and weighted clustering coefficient show an oscillatory pattern across the experimental session that is consistent with that observed for network flexibility (Fig. S4).”
plaincorrelational- 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.
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
“One voxel cluster in the left motor area centering around [−45 −10 48] survived whole-brain familywise error (FWE) correction (peak voxel at [−45 −10 48]: T = 4.80, pFWE = 0.014).”
plain- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These finding were robust to variations in the connectivity method (correlation instead of coherence), parameter selection in the community detection algorithm, and changes in the window size (SI Results, Robustness of Results).”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Brain areas and associated circuits or networks may be engaged in tasks differently over time: some transiently and some consistently (2, 3).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Fedorenko E, Thompson-Schill SL. Reworking the language network. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(3):120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Bassett DS, et al. Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(18):7641–7646. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018985108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
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 findings are conceptually consistent with previous results on the structure of working-memory networks (7, 27) involving frontotemporal and frontoparietal systems, and indicate that a reconfiguration between conditions is most prominent in frontal and frontal-related systems.”
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.
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
“suggesting that dynamic network reconfiguration between frontal systems supports those functions”
hedgeddirectn = 344- 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 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
“supporting the conclusion that higher frontal flexibility is cognitively beneficial for working-memory performance.”
plaindirect- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, this modular structure is not static but undergoes changes in response to external and internal drivers, ranging from cognitive processes (3, 31) to disease (32).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Bassett DS, et al. Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(18):7641–7646. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018985108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Cole MW, et al. Multi-task connectivity reveals flexible hubs for adaptive task control. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16(9):1348–1355. doi: 10.1038/nn.3470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Alexander-Bloch AF, et al. Disrupted modularity and local connectivity of brain functional networks in childhood-onset schizophrenia. Front Syst Neurosci. 2010;4:147. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2010.00147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- 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 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
“Taken together, our results suggest that working memory requires the active and dynamic reconfiguration of large-scale brain systems driven by frontal networks.”
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.
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
“further highlighting the critical importance of intersystem connectivity in the successful execution of more cognitively demanding tasks.”
boosteddirect- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To ensure that the connectivity matrices are not dominated by simple coactivation during the task blocks, we have regressed out the task activation using a general linear model (GLM), consistent with our prior work (23, 35, 47, 52).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Cole MW, Bassett DS, Power JD, Braver TS, Petersen SE. Intrinsic and task-evoked network architectures of the human brain. Neuron. 2014;83(1):238–251. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [35] Esslinger C, et al. Neural mechanisms of a genome-wide supported psychosis variant. Science. 2009;324(5927):605. doi: 10.1126/science.1167768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Cao H, et al. Test-retest reliability of fMRI-based graph theoretical properties during working memory, emotion processing, and resting state. Neuroimage. 2014;84:888–900. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [52] Lederbogen F, et al. City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans. Nature. 2011;474(7352):498–501. doi: 10.1038/nature10190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
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 results suggest that flexibility shifts toward frontal systems in response to increasing cognitive demands.”
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.
In the paper
“suggesting that they form a stable task-based core that supports higher order cognitive functions (40).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Bassett DS, et al. Task-based core-periphery organization of human brain dynamics. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(9):e1003171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
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
“suggesting that the ability of the frontal cortex to switch between network modules (as a measure of switching between functional states) is a more general feature of cognitive functioning rather than being specific to working-memory function.”
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 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
“suggesting that the ability to easily switch between modules or brain states is essential for working-memory performance.”
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.
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
“adding evidence for a domain-general role of these systems.”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, this set of additional analyses suggests that our results are relatively robust to small variation in methodological choices.”
hedged- 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.
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 large variation in integration across these modules suggests that cognitive systems play different roles in executive function predicated on the degree of interconnectivity with other systems.”
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.
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
“suggesting that reconfiguration of brain networks tracks brain state transitions, even when both brain states (task conditions) display equivalent flexibility.”
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“to demonstrate that our results are robust to a different selection of those parameters, we reanalyzed our data with different parameter values (γ ranging from 0.95 to 1.05 and ω ranging from 0.95 to 1.05), obtaining qualitatively similar results.”
boosted- 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.
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
“Interactions between these frontal systems might underlie executive function more generally.”
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.
In the paper
“The specificity of these correlations to the frontal systems suggests that network reconfiguration may form a putative neurophysiological mechanism of cognitive flexibility and executive function more generally (16).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] McNab F, Klingberg T. Prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia control access to working memory. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11(1):103–107. doi: 10.1038/nn2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
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.
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
“Here we characterize the dynamic nature of neural processes during working-memory performance, which stems from the reconfiguration of large-scale distributed neural circuits rather than from the activity of isolated brain areas.”
plaindirect- 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 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 differences are consistent with the fact that we examine community structure in module allegiance matrices, which are sensitive to fewer larger modules, as opposed to single-subject functional connectivity matrices, which are sensitive to a larger number of smaller modules.”
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
“Statistically, the wavelet-based coherence is much more robust to outliers in the data than the Pearson correlation coefficient, which can be extremely sensitive to movement-related artifacts.”
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.
In the paper
“Given the differences between the n-back working-memory task used here and the multitask scenario used in the Cole et al. (31) work, these results indicate that the flexibility of distinct cognitive systems can change depending on the task at hand.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Cole MW, et al. Multi-task connectivity reveals flexible hubs for adaptive task control. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16(9):1348–1355. doi: 10.1038/nn.3470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
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.
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 results indicate that window sizes of 15 TRs can robustly uncover reliable network architectures in this experimental context.”
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.
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
“Starting from a data-driven approach to cluster brain regions into communities, we track changes in network reconfiguration to frontal-related systems and show that the adaptive nature of the frontal cortex is relevant for cognitive functioning.”
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.
In the paper
“However, these approaches are increasingly complemented by connectivity-based approaches, which can provide direct insight into the nature of the underlying network dynamics that allow for behavioral adaptation (60).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] Medaglia JD, Lynall ME, Bassett DS. Cognitive network neuroscience. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015;27(8):1471–1491. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The methodological advances used in this work are based on the dynamic community detection techniques, which were developed in the last few years (6), and have since been tested and validated in a wide variety of simulated and empirical scenarios.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Mucha PJ, Richardson T, Macon K, Porter MA, Onnela JP. Community structure in time-dependent, multiscale, and multiplex networks. Science. 2010;328(5980):876–878. doi: 10.1126/science.1184819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In that paper, we used simulated data from Kuramoto oscillators (for which there is a large literature illustrating their utility as “neural state” nodes; see, for example, ref. 58 and references therein) on known community structure and demonstrated the ability of the computational techniques to successfully recover that structure.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Bassett DS, et al. Robust detection of dynamic community structure in networks. Chaos. 2013;23(1):013142. doi: 10.1063/1.4790830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites ref. 58
boosted- 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.
In the paper
“First, activation studies and metaanalysis of these tasks (39) usually investigate main effects of working-memory load and not within-load dynamics let alone per-trial effects in fMRI data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Owen AM, McMillan KM, Laird AR, Bullmore E. N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25(1):46–59. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
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 results suggest that the activity of brain regions is unlikely to be driving the observed changes in network flexibility.”
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 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
“Conversely, between task blocks, network reconfiguration mainly takes place as local rearrangements within modules.”
plaindirect- 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. 27
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
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 frontoparietal module was composed of more medial structures in the 0-back condition, and more lateral structures in the 2-back condition;”
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
“In contrast to a control condition, in which dynamic changes in cortical networks were spread evenly across systems, the effortful working-memory condition was characterized by a reconfiguration of frontoparietal and frontotemporal networks.”
plaincorrelationaln = 344- 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
“In the current study, we demonstrate that brain network flexibility and its relationship to cognitive demand can be tracked continuously on the order of minutes and undergoes specific and repetitive changes even within a given task.”
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.
In the paper
“we observe that the module that we have referred to as the “parietal module” contains a large portion of higher-order association areas that were classified as part of the visual system in Power et al. (36) (i.e., 85% of nodes in our parietal module were assigned to Power et al.’s “visual module”)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Power JD, et al. Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron. 2011;72(4):665–678. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
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
“Third, we observed that the decomposition of the module allegiance matrices into network modules was replicable.”
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.
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
“Despite the conservation of whole-brain flexibility across working-memory load, we did observe a redistribution of flexibility across cognitive 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.
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
“We robustly observe that network flexibility oscillates across task performance”
boostedcorrelational- 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.
The quote only partly states this claim.
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 provide evidence that the amount of reorganization in the modular structure and specifically the amount of interaction between modules is behaviorally relevant to working-memory performance and cognitive flexibility.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The identified network modules map well to biologically meaningful systems of intrinsic connectivity (36) and specifically systems commonly engaged during working-memory performance (14, 38, 39)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Power JD, et al. Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron. 2011;72(4):665–678. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Ginestet CE, Simmons A. Statistical parametric network analysis of functional connectivity dynamics during a working memory task. Neuroimage. 2011;55(2):688–704. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [38] Hampson M, Driesen NR, Skudlarski P, Gore JC, Constable RT. Brain connectivity related to working memory performance. J Neurosci. 2006;26(51):13338–13343. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3408-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
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
“In the present study, we have provided evidence that the functional connectivity during a working-memory task is dynamically organized into adapting modules and that this adapting modular structure relates to cognitive demands.”
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.
In the paper
“We found 46% of the mapped nodes belonging to the frontoparietal module identified by us, whereas 27% belonged to the somatomotor module and 12% belonged to the frontal module.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Owen AM, McMillan KM, Laird AR, Bullmore E. N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25(1):46–59. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- 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.
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
“Fourth, we observed a significant difference in flexibility between 0-back and 2-back [repeated-measures ANOVA with task and frontal vs. nonfrontal as categorical factors, main effect of task: F(1,343) = 21.8, P < 0.001], which was a trend in the results based on coherence.”
plain- 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.
The quote only partly states this claim.
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
“Critically, we observe that network modules differ in their degree of integration with other network modules: stable core-like modules including visual and somatomotor systems show relatively weak integration with other modules, whereas frontal and frontal-mediated modules show relatively strong integration with other modules (Fig. 2D).”
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
“Finally, the behavioral correlations we observed are small and some fail to reach statistical significance under Bonferroni correction, and therefore should be interpreted with caution and validated in future studies.”
plaincorrelational- 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
“Due to the heuristic nature of the algorithm and to the near degeneracy of the optimization landscape of the multilayer modularity quality function, each independent run of the algorithm provided slightly different partitions of network nodes into communities across the 114 time slices (or network layers).”
plaindirect- 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 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 clustering coefficient is highest between task blocks and lowest within task blocks, whereas the path length is longest between task blocks and shortest within task blocks.”
plaincorrelational- 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.
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 clustering coefficient is highest between task blocks and lowest within task blocks, whereas the path length is longest between task blocks and shortest within task blocks.”
plaincorrelational- 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
“Theoretical frameworks for working memory call on the interplay of distinct components (12) and their integration in broader cognitive circuits (1).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Baddeley A. Working memory. C R Acad Sci III. 1998;321(2-3):167–173. doi: 10.1016/s0764-4469(97)89817-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [1] Shohamy D, Turk-Browne NB. Mechanisms for widespread hippocampal involvement in cognition. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013;142(4):1159–1170. doi: 10.1037/a0034461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Working memory lies at the interface of perception and action (7) and requires the integration of large-scale neural circuits (8–11).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Shrager Y, Levy DA, Hopkins RO, Squire LR. Working memory and the organization of brain systems. J Neurosci. 2008;28(18):4818–4822. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0710-08.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Bressler SL, Menon V. Large-scale brain networks in cognition: Emerging methods and principles. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14(6):277–290. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Dehaene S, Naccache L. Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition. 2001;79(1-2):1–37. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Baars BJ, Franklin S. How conscious experience and working memory interact. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(4):166–172. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00056-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- 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
“emerging evidence indicates that many so-called “domain-general” areas engage in multiple functions, differing from “domain-specific” areas such as primary visual cortex that perform a very specific function (1, 2).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Shohamy D, Turk-Browne NB. Mechanisms for widespread hippocampal involvement in cognition. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013;142(4):1159–1170. doi: 10.1037/a0034461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Fedorenko E, Thompson-Schill SL. Reworking the language network. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(3):120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The empirical neuroimaging literature has bolstered these conceptualizations by identifying several distinct sets of brain areas underlying working-memory performance (13–17).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Baddeley A. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4(10):829–839. doi: 10.1038/nrn1201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Ginestet CE, Simmons A. Statistical parametric network analysis of functional connectivity dynamics during a working memory task. Neuroimage. 2011;55(2):688–704. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Collette F, Van der Linden M. Brain imaging of the central executive component of working memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26(2):105–125. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00063-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [16] McNab F, Klingberg T. Prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia control access to working memory. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11(1):103–107. doi: 10.1038/nn2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [17] Deserno L, Sterzer P, Wüstenberg T, Heinz A, Schlagenhauf F. Reduced prefrontal-parietal effective connectivity and working memory deficits in schizophrenia. J Neurosci. 2012;32(1):12–20. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3405-11.2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boostedcorrelational- 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
“Working memory lies at the interface of perception and action (7)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Linden DE. The working memory networks of the human brain. Neuroscientist. 2007;13(3):257–267. doi: 10.1177/1073858406298480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
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 results suggest that dynamic network reorganization is taking place predominately in frontal systems and is driven by a constant readaptation and interaction of frontal systems with each other.”
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Based on the cognitive load of the 2-back condition (20–22)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Baddeley A. Exploring the central executive. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1996;49(1):5–28. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Miyake A, et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognit Psychol. 2000;41(1):49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Kane MJ, Conway AR, Miura TK, Colflesh GJ. Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: A question of construct validity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007;33(3):615–622. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis confirms our previous results are not due to noise and finite data length, but show task-specific variations.”
boosted- 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 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
“Therefore, identical solutions that are obtained from diverse initial conditions actually indicate important replicable features of the landscape, which should be accounted for in subsequent analysis.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, as of today, a common method for dealing with this degeneracy is to examine statistics averaged over the 100 repetitions of the optimization, with equal weight being placed on each solution, rather than just on the unique solutions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Bassett DS, et al. Robust detection of dynamic community structure in networks. Chaos. 2013;23(1):013142. doi: 10.1063/1.4790830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [51] Good BH, de Montjoye Y-A, Clauset A. Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2010;81(4 Pt 2):046106. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.046106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As a complex system, the human brain is intrinsically organized into modules, creating a high degree of flexibility and adaptability of the system without fundamentally altering underlying structure (29, 30).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Kirschner M, Gerhart J. Evolvability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95(15):8420–8427. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.15.8420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Bassett DS, Gazzaniga MS. Understanding complexity in the human brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15(5):200–209. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- 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
“This indicates that the dynamic reconfiguration of frontal systems for working-memory function may not be limited to the n-back working-memory paradigm but may be essential for the manipulation of stored information across tasks.”
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
“It is intuitively plausible that the strong integration of frontal systems with other network modules forms a physiological basis for cognitive flexibility (15, 41), enabling task switching and cognitive control during demanding tasks (21, 42).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Collette F, Van der Linden M. Brain imaging of the central executive component of working memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26(2):105–125. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00063-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [41] Stuss DT. Frontal lobes and attention: Processes and networks, fractionation and integration. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006;12(2):261–271. doi: 10.1017/S1355617706060358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Miyake A, et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognit Psychol. 2000;41(1):49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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. 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
“Mathematically, the wavelet-based measures provide significant denoising to the signal, enhancing signal-to-noise ratio in subsequent analyses.”
plaindirect- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“due to heuristics in the algorithm and challenges inherent to fMRI data, the assignment of nodes to communities on the individual subject level remains a statistical process, accompanied by some degree of uncertainty.”
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.
In the paper
“maximizing the modularity quality function is NP-hard, and we therefore use a Louvain-like locally greedy heuristic algorithm (50) to seek the optimal modularity index Q.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Jutla I, Jeub L, Mucha P. 2011. A generalized Louvain method for community detection implemented in MATLAB (computer program). Available at netwiki.amath.unc.edu. Accessed September 1, 2014.
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we remain limited by the temporal resolution of fMRI data, making it likely that the modular changes and behavioral associations we observed might be further resolved in time if electrophysiological data were used.”
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.
In the paper
“In a recent paper from Van De Ville and colleague (49), the authors demonstrate the optimality of a 30-s time window for quantifying dynamic reconfiguration of networks in the frequency range 0.08–0.15 Hz.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Leonardi N, Van De Ville D. On spurious and real fluctuations of dynamic functional connectivity during rest. Neuroimage. 2015;104:430–436. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- 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
“flexibility can be driven by transient interactions between modules: the more transient module–module interactions, the more likely regions are to flexibly alter their allegiance to cognitive systems—an aspect of reconfiguration that we capture by integration.”
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“The n-back task has been studied extensively in the context of traditional activation and connectivity analyses (38, 39), identifying a large (executive) working-memory network dominated by frontal and parietal regions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] Hampson M, Driesen NR, Skudlarski P, Gore JC, Constable RT. Brain connectivity related to working memory performance. J Neurosci. 2006;26(51):13338–13343. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3408-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [39] Owen AM, McMillan KM, Laird AR, Bullmore E. N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25(1):46–59. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, we use a measure of functional connectivity that does not reflect causal interaction.”
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.
In the paper
“Indeed, connectivity analyses, and more complex measures of the dynamic reconfiguration of networks in face of different task demands, are not competitive with activation studies but provide very complementary insights that directly address the underlying mechanisms of cognitive processes (61).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [61] Bassett DS, Yang M, Wymbs NF, Grafton ST. Learning-induced autonomy of sensorimotor systems. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(5):744–751. doi: 10.1038/nn.3993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- 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.
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 results support the view that, within task blocks, network reconfiguration mainly takes place between modules, thus resulting in a lower clustering coefficient and an increased path length.”
plaindirect- 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 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
“Thus, the current work can be seen as a direct validation of the role of frontal regions in adaptive behavior, and as clarifying the mechanism of this role as based on dynamic changes in functional connectivity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Finally, dynamic community detection methods have further been used in the context of human motor skill learning (3) and lexical processing (59).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Bassett DS, et al. Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(18):7641–7646. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018985108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [59] Doron KW, Bassett DS, Gazzaniga MS. Dynamic network structure of interhemispheric coordination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(46):18661–18668. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216402109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
In the paper
“In a following methods paper (25), we stringently evaluated the methodological choices required to robustly detect dynamic community structure in simulated and empirical data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Bassett DS, et al. Robust detection of dynamic community structure in networks. Chaos. 2013;23(1):013142. doi: 10.1063/1.4790830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- 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
“Therefore, although network reconfiguration explains a small amount of variance, it has quantifiable advantages over traditional analyses and here offers complementary insights into the neurobiological basis of working memory.”
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.
In the paper
“Third, the main effect of task was removed from the data to not confound network measures with large-scale block (co)activations, as has been done previously (e.g., see ref. 23).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ref. 23
plaindirect- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To account for noise, only matrix elements whose values were larger than expected in a random network null model were taken into account.”
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.
In the paper
“This procedure can be repeated iteratively, so that repeated optimizations of the modularity quality function of the consensus matrix Tcons return a single optimal consensus partition S, which partitions brain regions into representative putative functional modules that we interpret as cognitive systems (25).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Bassett DS, et al. Robust detection of dynamic community structure in networks. Chaos. 2013;23(1):013142. doi: 10.1063/1.4790830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To be conservative, we remove such “noise” from the original nodal association matrix T by setting any element Tij whose value is less than the maximum entry of the random association matrix to 0.”
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.
In the paper
“For example, although classical GLM-based approaches are often interpreted as indicating functional associations between regions, connectivity analyses provide direct evidence of neurophysiological mechanisms defining the roles of brain networks in cognition (2).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Fedorenko E, Thompson-Schill SL. Reworking the language network. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(3):120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- 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
“In that paper, we also developed a framework of null model testing for statistical inference in the context of neuroimaging data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Bassett DS, et al. Robust detection of dynamic community structure in networks. Chaos. 2013;23(1):013142. doi: 10.1063/1.4790830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
In the paper
“In the original paper (6), the methods were tested on two different kinds of social networks, and results were consistent with prior knowledge regarding these systems.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Mucha PJ, Richardson T, Macon K, Porter MA, Onnela JP. Community structure in time-dependent, multiscale, and multiplex networks. Science. 2010;328(5980):876–878. doi: 10.1126/science.1184819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 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.
The paper relies on this without support.
The trail-making test B measures executive flexibility by capturing the subject's cognitive ability to switch between task demands.
“We directly tested the relationship between frontal integration and cognitive flexibility using behavioral scores on the trail-making test B (TMT-B), which measures executive flexibility by capturing the subject's cognitive ability to switch between task demands.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The digit span backward task captures temporary information storage and the active manipulation of stored items.
“we tested the relationship between frontal integration and performance on a digit span backward task, which captures temporary information storage and the active manipulation of stored items.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The n-back task is a valid manipulation of working memory/executive cognition.
“during a working-memory challenge (the “n-back” task)”
The paper relies on this without support.
A large score on the TMT-B task indicates poor task switching ability, and a small score indicates good task switching ability.
“A large score on the TMT-B task (as measured by the time to complete the task) indicates poor task switching ability, and a small score indicates good task switching ability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The digit span forward task does not require active information manipulation.
“which does not require active information manipulation.”
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
“There is evidence that this property is important for executive functioning, learning, and switching between challenging task demands (Bassett et al., 2011; Braun et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2016).”
From Development of large-scale functional networks from birth to adulthood: A guide to the neuroimaging literature (2017) · cites this paper as Braun et al., 2015
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Not confirmedt(343) = 2.259reported p < .024 · recomputed p = .025
“t(343) = 2.259, p < .024”
- Not confirmedt(343) = 2.974reported p < .003 · recomputed p = .003
“t(343) = 2.974, p < .003”
- ConsistentF(2, 343) = 20.75reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2,343) = 20.75, p < .001”
- Consistentt(343) = 1.31reported p = .19 · recomputed p = .191
“t(343) = 1.31, p = .19”
- Consistentt(343) = -10.32reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(343) = −10.32, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(8, 343) = 29.95reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(8,343) = 29.95, p < .001”
- Consistentt(343) = 9.42reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(343) = 9.42, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(7, 343) = 11.75reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(7,343) = 11.75, p < .001”
- Consistentt(343) = 4.98reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(343) = 4.98, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 343) = 6.25reported p < .013 · recomputed p = .013
“F(1,343) = 6.25, p < .013”
- ConsistentF(1, 343) = 16.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,343) = 16.5, p < .001”
- Consistentt(343) = 2reported p = .045 · recomputed p = .046
“t(343) = 2.0, p = .045”
- ConsistentF(1, 343) = 64.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,343) = 64.6, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 343) = 21.8reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,343) = 21.8, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 343) = 196.8reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1,343) = 196.8, p < .001”
- Consistentt(343) = 6.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(343) = 6.97, p < .001”
- Consistentt(343) = -0.44reported p = .66 · recomputed p = .660
“t(343) = −0.44, p = .66”
- Consistentt(343) = -0.417reported p < .677 · recomputed p = .677
“t(343) = −0.417, p < .677”
- Consistentt(343) = -0.742reported p < .459 · recomputed p = .459
“t(343) = −0.742, p < .459”
- Consistentt(343) = 0.573reported p < .567 · recomputed p = .567
“t(343) = 0.573, p < .567”
- Consistentt(343) = -0.204reported p < .839 · recomputed p = .838
“t(343) = −0.204, p < .839”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“repeated-measures ANOVA with condition as factor: F(2,343) = 20.75, P < 0.001”
Reported 343 · recomputed 686
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“repeated-measures ANOVA with modules as categorical factor: F(8,343) = 29.95, P < 0.001”
Reported 343 · recomputed 2744
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“As the overlap of the time series is large (14/15 volumes = 91%)”
Reported 91 · recomputed 93.333333
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Methods
“the path length is longest between task blocks and shortest within task blocks.”
§ Methods
“within task blocks, network reconfiguration mainly takes place between modules, thus resulting in a lower clustering coefficient and an increased path length.”
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
An 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
The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity
Thomas Yeo, B. T., Krienen, F. M., Sepulcre, J., Sabuncu, M. R., Lashkari, D., Hollinshead, M., Roffman, J. L., Smoller, J. W., Zöllei, L., Polimeni, J. R., et al. (2011) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00338.2011 · Cited by 9,182
The organization of the human cerebellum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity
Buckner, R. L., Krienen, F. M., Castellanos, A., Diaz, J. C., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2011) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00339.2011 · Cited by 7,304
Working memory: Looking back and looking forward
Baddeley, A. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1201 · Cited by 5,200
Functional Network Organization of the Human Brain
Power, J. D., Cohen, A. L., Nelson, S. M., Wig, G. S., Barnes, K. A., Church, J. A., Vogel, A. C., Laumann, T. O., Miezin, F. M., Schlaggar, B. L., et al. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006 · Cited by 4,124
N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies.
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20131 · Cited by 3,560
Dynamic functional connectivity: Promise, issues, and interpretations
Hutchison, R. M., Womelsdorf, T., Allen, E. A., Bandettini, P. A., Calhoun, V. D., Corbetta, M., Della Penna, S., Duyn, J. H., Glover, G. H., Gonzalez-Castillo, J., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.079 · Cited by 2,962
Holme, P., & Saramäki, J. (2012) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.001 · Cited by 2,736
Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework
Dehaene, S. (2001) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2 · Cited by 2,498
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- R Amthauer, B Brocke, D Liepmann, A Beauducel Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000: IST 2000 (Hogrefe and Huber, Göttingen, Germany, 1999).
- 10.1038/nn.3993 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bassett, D. S., & Sporns, O. (2017) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4502 · Cited by 2,398
Self-citationThe role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function
Friedman, N. P., & Robbins, T. W. (2022) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-021-01132-0 · Cited by 1,737
“Moreover, the extent to which brain network connectivity changes in response to cognitive demands is associated with better performance on different CC tasks [154, 155], suggesting that task-based neural flexibility may facilitate Common CC through adaptive control [156].”
BackgroundThe dynamic functional connectome: State-of-the-art and perspectives
Preti, M. G., Bolton, T. A. W., & Ville, D. V. D. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.061 · Cited by 1,454
Communication dynamics in complex brain networks
Avena-Koenigsberger, A., Misic, B., & Sporns, O. (2018) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.149 · Cited by 856
The Segregation and Integration of Distinct Brain Networks and Their Relationship to Cognition
Cohen, J. R., & D’Esposito, M. (2016) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2965-15.2016 · Cited by 816
Metadata
- Authors
- Braun, U., Schäfer, A., Walter, H., Erk, S., Romanczuk-Seiferth, N., Haddad, L., Schweiger, J. I., Grimm, O., Heinz, A., Tost, H., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., & Bassett, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité–University Medicine Berlin, Campus Mitte, 10117 Berlin, Germany;
- Central Institute for Mental Health Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Medical Faculty Mannheim, 68159 Mannheim, Germany;
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-08-31
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 37
- Pages
- 11678-11683
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4577153
- OpenAlex
- W1907418661
- Cited by
- 791
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 74 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 38.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (MacArthur Award)
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Sloan Fellow)
- DOD | U.S. Army | AMC | U.S. Army Research Laboratory (W911NF-10-2-0022)
- HHS | National Institutes of Health (#2-R01-DC-009209-11)
- DOD | Army Research Office (W911NF-14-1-0679)
- National Science Foundation (BCS-1441502, BCS-1430087)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- dynamic network reconfiguration, executive cognition, working memory, n-back task, frontoparietal network, fronto-temporal network, network flexibility, functional brain networks, schizophrenia, dementia
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, Young Adult, Executive Function
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 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (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
