Cited by 616Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Parcellations and Hemispheric Asymmetries of Human Cerebral Cortex Analyzed on Surface-Based Atlases

Open access
Van Essen, D. C., Glasser, M. F., Dierker, D. L., Harwell, J., Coalson, T.·2012·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

We report on surface-based analyses that enhance our understanding of human cortical organization, including its convolutions and its parcellation into many distinct areas. The surface area of human neocortex averages 973 cm(2) per hemisphere, based on cortical midthickness surfaces of 2 cohorts of subjects. We implemented a method to register individual subjects to a hybrid version of the FreeSurfer "fsaverage" atlas whose left and right hemispheres are in precise geographic correspondence. Cortical folding patterns in the resultant population-average "fs_LR" midthickness surfaces are remarkably similar in the left and right hemispheres, even in regions showing significant asymmetry in 3D position. Both hemispheres are equal in average surface area, but hotspots of surface area asymmetry are present in the Sylvian Fissure and elsewhere, together with a broad pattern of asymmetries that are significant though small in magnitude. Multiple cortical parcellation schemes registered to the human atlas provide valuable reference data sets for comparisons with other studies. Identified cortical areas vary in size by more than 2 orders of magnitude. The total number of human neocortical areas is estimated to be ∼150 to 200 areas per hemisphere, which is modestly larger than a recent estimate for the macaque.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bhr291

Cites

96 of 96 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?

  • If inter-subject alignment of rfMRI data is only driven by information from high resolution structural images, alignment of cortical functional areas across subjects will be imperfect in many regions, given the variable relationship between cortical areas and structural features such as tissue intensities and cortical folding patterns.

    “if inter-subject alignment of rfMRI data is only driven by information from high resolution structural images, it is expected that alignment of cortical functional areas across subjects will be imperfect in many regions, given the variable relationship between cortical areas and structural features such as tissue intensities and cortical folding patterns [69].”

    From Functional connectomics from resting-state fMRI (2013) · cites this paper as [69]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Joshi SC. 1997. Large deformation landmark based differeomorphic for image matching [PhD Thesis]. [St Louis (MO)]:Sever Institute, Washington University.
  2. Polyak S. 1957. The vertebrate system. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Essen, D. C., Glasser, M. F., Dierker, D. L., Harwell, J., & Coalson, T.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2011-11-02
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
2241-2262
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2162261751
Cited by
616
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 13
FWCI
13.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1u54mh091657-01, 1U54‐MH‐091657)
  • McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience (1U54MH091657)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH60974, R01MH060974, 1U54-MH091657-01, 1U54 MH091657)
  • NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research (1U54-MH-091657)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
human cerebral cortex, cortical parcellation, hemispheric lateralization, cortical folding, cortical surface area, FreeSurfer, Sylvian fissure
MeSH terms
Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Models, Anatomic, Models, Neurological, Connectome

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