Cited by 599Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Brain Anatomical Network and Intelligence

Open access
Li, Yonghui, Liu, Yong, Li, Jun, Qin, Wen, Li, Kuncheng, Yu, Chunshui, Jiang, Tianzi·2009·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

Intuitively, higher intelligence might be assumed to correspond to more efficient information transfer in the brain, but no direct evidence has been reported from the perspective of brain networks. In this study, we performed extensive analyses to test the hypothesis that individual differences in intelligence are associated with brain structural organization, and in particular that higher scores on intelligence tests are related to greater global efficiency of the brain anatomical network. We constructed binary and weighted brain anatomical networks in each of 79 healthy young adults utilizing diffusion tensor tractography and calculated topological properties of the networks using a graph theoretical method. Based on their IQ test scores, all subjects were divided into general and high intelligence groups and significantly higher global efficiencies were found in the networks of the latter group. Moreover, we showed significant correlations between IQ scores and network properties across all subjects while controlling for age and gender. Specifically, higher intelligence scores corresponded to a shorter characteristic path length and a higher global efficiency of the networks, indicating a more efficient parallel information transfer in the brain. The results were consistently observed not only in the binary but also in the weighted networks, which together provide convergent evidence for our hypothesis. Our findings suggest that the efficiency of brain structural organization may be an important biological basis for intelligence.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000395

Cites

81 of 81 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?

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: 3

  1. [69]Lazar M Weinstein DM Hasan KM Alexander AL 2000 Axon tractography with tensorlines. 482 Proceedings of International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Denver, CO
  2. [70]Lazar M Alexander AL 2001 Error analysis of white matter tracking algorithms (streamline and tensorlines) for DT-MRI. 506 Proceedings of International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Glasgow, UK
  3. [78]Waldmann BW Dickson AL Monahan MC Kazelskis R 1992 The relationship between intellectual ability and adult performance on the Trail Making Test and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. J Clin Psychol 48 360 363 1602026

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Y., Liu, Y., Li, J., Qin, W., Li, K., Yu, C., & Jiang, T.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Yu, Chunshui
  • Jiang, Tianzi
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2009-05-29
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
e1000395
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2073017605
Cited by
597
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 50
FWCI
29.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (30730035, 60675033, 30670601)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-07-0568)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
intelligence, global efficiency, average path length, individual differences in intelligence, structural connectivity, diffusion tensor tractography, graph theory, information transmission efficiency, IQ
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Intelligence Tests, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Cluster Analysis, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance 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