Cited by 1,626Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionComplex Network Analysis Techniques

A measure for brain complexity: relating functional segregation and integration in the nervous system

Open access
Tononi, G, Sporns, O, Edelman, G M·1994·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

In brains of higher vertebrates, the functional segregation of local areas that differ in their anatomy and physiology contrasts sharply with their global integration during perception and behavior. In this paper, we introduce a measure, called neural complexity (CN), that captures the interplay between these two fundamental aspects of brain organization. We express functional segregation within a neural system in terms of the relative statistical independence of small subsets of the system and functional integration in terms of significant deviations from independence of large subsets. CN is then obtained from estimates of the average deviation from statistical independence for subsets of increasing size. CN is shown to be high when functional segregation coexists with integration and to be low when the components of a system are either completely independent (segregated) or completely dependent (integrated). We apply this complexity measure in computer simulations of cortical areas to examine how some basic principles of neuroanatomical organization constrain brain dynamics. We show that the connectivity patterns of the cerebral cortex, such as a high density of connections, strong local connectivity organizing cells into neuronal groups, patchiness in the connectivity among neuronal groups, and prevalent reciprocal connections, are associated with high values of CN. The approach outlined here may prove useful in analyzing complexity in other biological domains such as gene regulation and embryogenesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.91.11.5033

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tononi, G., Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M.
Affiliations
Neurosciences Institute (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1994-05-24
Volume
91
Issue
11
Pages
5033-5037
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2090414491
Cited by
1,626
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 92 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 59
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
neural complexity, functional segregation, functional integration, statistical independence, brain organization, reciprocal connections, brain dynamics, higher vertebrates
MeSH terms
Animals, Axons, Brain, Computer Simulation, Humans, Neurons

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