Cited by 11Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesComplex Network Analysis TechniquesNeural dynamics and brain function

Editorial: network communication in the brain

Open access
Graham, Daniel, Avena-Koenigsberger, Andrea, Mišić, Bratislav·2020·Network Neuroscience

Abstract

Communication models describe the flow of signals among nodes of a network. In neural systems, communication models are increasingly applied to investigate network dynamics across the whole brain, with the ultimate aim to understand how signal flow gives rise to brain function. Communication models range from diffusion-like processes to those related to infectious disease transmission and those inspired by engineered communication systems like the internet. This Focus Feature brings together novel investigations of a diverse range of mechanisms and strategies that could shape communication in mammal whole-brain networks.

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 · 10.1162/netn_e_00167

Cites

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?

  • Graph measures can be classified by resolution or scope into local, mesoscale, and global measures.

    “Graph measures can be classified based on their resolution or scope—from local measures that quantify properties of individual ROIs (nodes), to mesoscale measures describing clusters of interconnected ROIs, to global measures that describe whole-brain connectivity properties (Betzel and Bassett, 2017; Fornito et al., 2016) such as network communication in the brain (Graham et al., 2020) (Fig. 4b).”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Assaf Y., Bouznach A., Zomet O., Marom A., & Yovel Y. (2020). Conservation of brain connectivity and wiring across the mammalian class. Nature Neuroscience, 23, 805– 808. 32514137
  2. Avena-Koenigsberger A., Mišić B., & Sporns O. (2018). Communication dynamics in complex brain networks. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19(1), 17. 29238085
  3. Bassett D. S., & Sporns O. (2017). Network neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 20(3), 353– 364. 28230844 PMC5485642
  4. Carbonell F., Iturria-Medina Y., & Evans A. C. (2018). Mathematical modeling of protein misfolding mechanisms in neurological diseases: A historical overview. Frontiers in Neurology, 9, 37. 29456521 PMC5801313
  5. Crofts J. J., & Higham D. J. (2009). A weighted communicability measure applied to complex brain networks. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 6(33), 411– 414. PMC2658663 19141429
  6. Estrada E., & Hatano N. (2008). Communicability in complex networks. Physical Review E, 77(3), 036111. 18517465
  7. Gidon A., Zolnik T. A., Fidzinski P., Bolduan F., Papoutsi A., Poirazi P., & Larkum M. E. (2020). Dendritic action potentials and computation in human layer 2/3 cortical neurons. Science, 367(6473), 83– 87. 31896716
  8. Graham D. J., & Rockmore D. N. (2011). The packet switching brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 267– 276. 20350173
  9. Granovetter M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420– 1443.
  10. Hao Y., & Graham D. (2020). Creative destruction: Collisions and redundancy generate emergent sparseness on the mammal connectome. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 1055– 1071. 10.1162/netn_a_00165 PMC7655042 33195948 · DOI
  11. Knoblauch K., Kennedy H., & Toroczkai Z. (2016). The brain in space. In Micro-, meso-and macro-connectomics of the brain (pp. 45– 74). Cambridge, MA: Springer. 28590611
  12. Lella E., & Estrada E. (2020). Communicability distance reveals hidden patterns of Alzheimer’s disease. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 1007– 1029. 10.1162/netn_a_00143 PMC7655045 33195946 · DOI
  13. Mišić B., Sporns O., & McIntosh A. R. (2014). Communication efficiency and congestion of signal traffic in large-scale brain networks. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(1), e1003427. 24415931 PMC3886893
  14. Patankar S. P., Kim J. Z., Pasqualetti F., & Bassett D. S. (2020). Path-dependent connectivity, not modularity, consistently predicts controllability of structural brain networks. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 1091– 1121. 10.1162/netn_a_00157 PMC7655114 33195950 · DOI
  15. Sardi S., Vardi R., Sheinin A., Goldental A., & Kanter I. (2017). New types of experiments reveal that a neuron functions as multiple independent threshold units. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1– 7. 29269849 PMC5740076
  16. Seguin C., Tian Y., & Zalesky A. (2020). Network communication models improve the behavioral and functional predictive utility of the human structural connectome. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 980– 1006. 10.1162/netn_a_00161 PMC7655041 33195945 · DOI
  17. Shadi K., Dyer E., & Dovrolis C. (2020). Multi-sensory integration in the mouse cortical connectome 1 using a network diffusion model. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 1030– 1054. 10.1162/netn_a_00164 PMC7655044 33195947 · DOI
  18. Srivastava P., Erfan N., Kim J. Z., Ju H., Zhou D., Becker C., Pasqualetti F., Pappas G. J., & Bassett D. S. (2020). Models of communication and control for brain networks: Distinctions, convergence, and future outlook. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 1122– 1159. 10.1162/netn_a_00158 PMC7655113 33195951 · DOI
  19. Vázquez-Rodríguez B., Sárez L. E., Markello R. D., Shafiei G., Paquola C., Hagmann P., … Mišić B. (2019). Gradients of structure–function tethering across neocortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(42), 21219– 21227. PMC6800358 31570622
  20. Vázquez-Rodríguez B., Liu Z. Q., Hagmann P., & Mišić B. (2020). Signal propagation via cortical hierarchies. Network Neuroscience, 4(4), 1072– 1090. 10.1162/netn_a_00153 PMC7657265 33195949 · DOI

Authors
Graham, D., Avena-Koenigsberger, A., & Mišić, B.
Affiliations
  • Hobart and William Smith Colleges (US)
  • University Information Technology Services, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
  • Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
Venue
Network Neuroscience
Published
2020-01
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
976-979
ISSN
2472-1751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3099479723
Cited by
11
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Network Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
whole-brain networks, signal flow, network dynamics, infectious disease transmission models, mammalian brain, brain 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