Cited by 520Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction

Connectivity-based subdivisions of the human right “temporoparietal junction area”: evidence for different areas participating in different cortical networks

Mars, R. B., Sallet, J., Schuffelgen, U., Jbabdi, S., Toni, I., Rushworth, M. F. S.·2012·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Controversy surrounds the role of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) area of the human brain. Although TPJ has been implicated both in reorienting of attention and social cognition, it is still unclear whether these functions have the same neural basis. Indeed, whether TPJ is a precisely identifiable cortical region or a cluster of subregions with separate functions is still a matter of debate. Here, we examined the structural and functional connectivity of TPJ, testing whether TPJ is a unitary area with a heterogeneous functional connectivity profile or a conglomerate of regions with distinctive connectivity. Diffusion-weighted imaging tractrography-based parcellation identified 3 separate regions in TPJ. Resting-state functional connectivity was then used to establish which cortical networks each of these subregions participates in. A dorsal cluster in the middle part of the inferior parietal lobule showed resting-state functional connectivity with, among other areas, lateral anterior prefrontal cortex. Ventrally, an anterior TPJ cluster interacted with ventral prefrontal cortex and anterior insula, while a posterior TPJ cluster interacted with posterior cingulate, temporal pole, and anterior medial prefrontal cortex. These results indicate that TPJ can be subdivided into subregions on the basis of its structural and functional connectivity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhr268

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Mars, R. B., Sallet, J., Schuffelgen, U., Jbabdi, S., Toni, I., & Rushworth, M. F. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2011-09-27
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
1894-1903
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2117629800
Cited by
520
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 20
FWCI
15.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Keywords
temporoparietal junction, resting-state functional connectivity, structural connectivity, parcellation, inferior parietal lobule, social cognition, anterior prefrontal cortex, anterior insula, posterior cingulate cortex, temporal pole, anterior medial prefrontal cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Neural Pathways, Young Adult, Diffusion Tensor Imaging

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