Cited by 50Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesComplex Network Analysis TechniquesNeural dynamics and brain function

Generative models of rich clubs in Hebbian neuronal networks and large-scale human brain networks

Open access
Vértes, Petra E., Alexander-Bloch, Aaron, Bullmore, Edward T.·2014·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Rich clubs arise when nodes that are ‘rich’ in connections also form an elite, densely connected ‘club’. In brain networks, rich clubs incur high physical connection costs but also appear to be especially valuable to brain function. However, little is known about the selection pressures that drive their formation. Here, we take two complementary approaches to this question: firstly we show, using generative modelling, that the emergence of rich clubs in large-scale human brain networks can be driven by an economic trade-off between connection costs and a second, competing topological term. Secondly we show, using simulated neural networks, that Hebbian learning rules also drive the emergence of rich clubs at the microscopic level, and that the prominence of these features increases with learning time. These results suggest that Hebbian learning may provide a neuronal mechanism for the selection of complex features such as rich clubs. The neural networks that we investigate are explicitly Hebbian, and we argue that the topological term in our model of large-scale brain connectivity may represent an analogous connection rule. This putative link between learning and rich clubs is also consistent with predictions that integrative aspects of brain network organization are especially important for adaptive behaviour.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2013.0531

Cites

48 of 48 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

2 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vértes, P. E., Alexander-Bloch, A., & Bullmore, E. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Vértes, Petra E.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2014-10-05
Volume
369
Issue
1653
Pages
20130531
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W1988516611
Cited by
50
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (095844/Z/11/Z, 095844, 093875)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0513-10051)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K020706/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
rich club, Hebbian learning, brain connectivity, large-scale brain networks, generative network models, connection cost, network topology, neural network simulation
MeSH terms
Brain, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Organogenesis

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