Cited by 595Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Heterogeneity within the frontoparietal control network and its relationship to the default and dorsal attention networks

Open access
Dixon, Matthew L., De La Vega, Alejandro, Mills, Caitlin, Andrews-Hanna, Jessica, Spreng, R. Nathan, Cole, Michael W., Christoff, Kalina·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Significance: The frontoparietal control network (FPCN) contributes to executive control, the ability to deliberately guide action based on goals. While the FPCN is often viewed as a unitary domain general system, it is possible that the FPCN contains a fine-grained internal organization, with separate zones involved in different types of executive control. Here, we use graph theory and meta-analytic functional profiling to demonstrate that the FPCN is composed of two separate subsystems: FPCN A is connected to the default network and is involved in the regulation of introspective processes, whereas FPCN B is connected to the dorsal attention network and is involved in the regulation of perceptual attention. These findings offer a distinct perspective on the systems-level circuitry underlying cognitive control.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1715766115

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Exteroceptive and interoceptive stimuli can activate lateral and medial frontoparietal networks in the brain that overlap with regions involved in the dorsal attentional network and the default mode network, respectively.

    “Moreover, in addition to the prefrontal cortex, Dixon et al. (2018) suggests that exteroceptive and interoceptive stimuli can activate lateral and medial frontoparietal networks in the brain that overlap with regions involved in the dorsal attentional network and the default mode network, respectively.”

    From How Processing of Sensory Information From the Internal and External Worlds Shape the Perception and Engagement With the World in the Aftermath of Trauma: Implications for PTSD (2021) · cites this paper as Dixon et al. (2018)

    The paper reports that FPCN B is more strongly connected with the dorsal attention network, while FPCN A is more strongly connected with the default network; its Discussion also links them to perceptual attention and introspective thought, respectively. But the Differential Coupling Patterns section describes these networks as spatially segregated, not overlapping, and the paper does not establish that exteroceptive and interoceptive stimuli activate lateral and medial frontoparietal networks as claimed. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Dixon et al. found in a meta-analysis that FPCN-A is more involved in mentalizing, emotional processing, and complex social reasoning than other FPCN regions.

    “Moreover, Dixon et al. found in a meta-analysis that FPCN-A is more involved in mentalizing, emotional processing, and complex social reasoning than other regions of the FPCN, which is consistent with a role for SMG and DLPFC in representing idiosyncratic interpretations of an animated shapes movie.”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Dixon et al., 2018

  • SMG and DLPFC belong to a proposed FPCN subnetwork, FPCN-A, which has been shown to be more highly correlated with the DMN across various tasks.

    “In particular, both SMG and DLPFC are part of a proposed FPCN subnetwork, FPCN-A, that has been shown to be more highly correlated with DMN in a variety of tasks ranging from classic cognitive control tasks, resting state, social-cognitive tasks, and movie watching (Dixon et al., 2018).”

    From Shared understanding of narratives is correlated with shared neural responses (2019) · cites this paper as Dixon et al., 2018

  • Although schema-reliance and associative strength vary across the spectrum of simulation tasks, neither process is unique to past or future simulation, and both remembering and imagining involve coupling of the DMN and frontoparietal control network.

    “although schema-reliance and associative strength vary across this spectrum of simulation tasks, from past events through to novel or implausible future events, neither process is unique to the simulation of past or future events, and both remembering and imagining is associated with coupling of the DMN and frontoparietal control network (Dixon et al., 2018).”

    From Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation. (2020) · cites this paper as Dixon et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dixon, M. L., De La Vega, A., Mills, C., Andrews-Hanna, J., Spreng, R. N., Cole, M. W., & Christoff, K.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712;
  • Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0345;
  • Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada;
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-01-30
Volume
115
Issue
7
Pages
E1598-E1607
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2951435914
Cited by
595
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 79 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
30.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Gouvernement du Canada | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN 327317-11)
  • Gouvernement du Canada | Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-115197)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
frontoparietal network, default mode network, dorsal attention network, executive function, cognitive control, network heterogeneity, perceptual attention, functional connectivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Brain Mapping, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Networks, Computer, 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.

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