The Organization of the Human Cerebral Cortex Estimated by Intrinsic Functional Connectivity
Journal of Neurophysiology, 2011 · paper · Biomedicine
Maps networks of the human cerebral cortex using resting-state functional connectivity MRI from 1,000 subjects. Clustering reveals local sensory-motor networks and distributed association networks, with abrupt boundaries in association cortex and parallel, interdigitated circuits in parietal and prefrontal regions.
4 findings
Substance Results p. 20: "In particular, FEF was more strongly correlated with the three IPS seeds (all P < 0.001), whereas PrCv was more strongly correlated with SPL7A and SPL7P (both P < 0.001)" swaps FEF and PrCv relative to the preceding sentence, the Fig. 27 legend, Fig. 27B and the Discussion.
- p. 20 Results, Frontoparietal interactions, right column
FEF was more strongly corre-lated with the three IPS seeds (all P < 0.001), whereas PrCv was more strongly correlated with SPL7A and SPL7P
- p. 20 Results, preceding sentence
were more strongly correlated with PrCv than FEF, whereas the mediocaudal SPL regions (SPL7A and SPL7P) were more strongly correlated with FEF than PrCv
- p. 24 Fig. 27B and caption
Rostrolateral IPS seed regions (IPS1, IPS2, and IPS3m) are more strongly correlated with PrCv than FEF
- p. 34 Discussion, right column
PrCv was strongly correlated with more ventral portions of rostral SPL and IPS, whereas FEF was strongly correlated with caudal SPL and IPS
Judge's note: On p. 20 the preceding sentence says IPS1/IPS2/IPS3m correlate more strongly with PrCv and SPL7A/SPL7P with FEF. The Fig. 27 legend (p. 24) and the Discussion (p. 34) say the same. In the Fig. 27B bars, the light PrCv bars are higher for IPS1 (~0.26 vs ~0.0), IPS2 (~0.51 vs ~0.33) and IPS3m (~0.45 vs ~0.32). The dark FEF bars are higher for SPL7A (~0.33 vs ~0.25) and SPL7P (~0.30 vs ~0.22). The 'In particular' sentence states the reverse.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label In-text citation "positron emission tomography (PET; Raichle 1987)" (p. 2) does not match the only Raichle single-author reference entry, dated "Bethesda, MD: Am Physiol Soc, 1997, sect. 1, vol. V, part 1, p. 643–674." (p. 40).
- p. 2 Introduction, Insights Into the Organization
emission tomography (PET; Raichle 1987)
- p. 40 Reference list
Bethesda, MD: Am Physiol Soc, 1997, sect. 1, vol. V, part 1, p. 643–674.
- p. 40 Reference list
Bethesda, MD: Am Physiol Soc, 1997, sect. 1, vol. V
- p. 2 Introduction, neuroimaging section
positron emission tomography (PET; Raichle 1987)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: which of the two years is the real publication year of the Handbook of Physiology chapter. Page 2 prints 'Raichle 1987' and the reference list on p. 40 prints 1997 for the only Raichle single-author entry. The years disagree inside the paper. The files cannot show which year is right, so this goes to the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Markov et al. is cited as "Markov et al. 2010" on pp. 11 and 33, but the reference list entry reads "Cereb Cortex 21: 1254–1272, 2011."
- p. 11 Results, Estimates From 1,000 Subjects
et al. 1978; Markov et al. 2010) and preferential local func-
- p. 33 Discussion
Felleman and Van Essen 1991; Markov et al. 2010)
- p. 40 Reference list
Weight consistency specifies regularities of macaque cortical networks. Cereb Cortex 21: 1254–1272, 2011.
- p. 33 Discussion, left column
Felleman and Van Essen 1991; Markov et al. 2010
Judge's note: I checked p. 11 (right column), p. 33 (left column) and p. 40. Both in-text citations say 2010 and the only Markov entry says 2011. An online-first date could explain the difference, but citation and reference should agree.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 2 footnote: "FEF, IPS2, SPL7A, and SPL7P were derived from the meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies (see Table 4)". The meta-analysis is in Table 3.
- p. 21 Table 2 footnote
FEF, IPS2, SPL7A, and SPL7P were derived from the meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies (see Table 4)
- p. 23 Table 3 title
Summary of fMRI meta-analysis to obtain coordinates for IPS2, SPL7A, SPL7P, and FEF
- p. 21 Table 2 footnote
fMRI) studies (see Table 4)
- p. 21 Table 2 footnote
derived from the meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies (see Table 4)
Judge's note: The Table 3 title on p. 23 is 'Summary of fMRI meta-analysis to obtain coordinates for IPS2, SPL7A, SPL7P, and FEF'. Table 4 (p. 27) lists seed coordinates for the connectivity fingerprints and contains no meta-analysis. The Fig. 27 legend also cites Table 3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
18 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label Fig. 29 legend: "Relative ordering of the seed regions (A and B) within the functional hierarchy agrees well with the proposed macaque visual hierarchy". The legend defines the 2 best arrangements as "B and C".
- p. 26 Fig. 29 legend
Relative ordering of the seed regions (A and B) within the functional hierarchy agrees well
- p. 26 Fig. 29 legend
B and C: 2 best hierarchical arrangements of the seed regions
- p. 26 Fig. 29 legend
Relative or-dering of the seed regions (A and B) within the functional hierarchy agrees well with the proposed macaque visual hierarchy
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: On p. 26, panel A is a brain map with seed locations and panels B and C are the two best hierarchies (7.0% and 9.8%). The text on p. 21 says 'In both cases' about the two best arrangements. The legend also describes A as the seeds 'arranged into a 5-level functional hierarchy', so 'A and B' is ambiguous at best and is likely meant to be 'B and C'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Discussion (p. 31) says 'Figure 19 shows that the motor component of the somatomotor network included MI (area 4)... SI', but Fig. 19 shows only areas 6, 2 and 5L, and the Results say areas 1, 3 and 4 'are not shown'.
- p. 31 Discussion, Somatomotor Cortex..., left column below Fig. 32
Figure 19 shows that the motor component of the somatomotor network included MI (area 4)
- p. 19 Fig. 19 panels and legend
Seven-network boundaries on probabilistic maps of areas 6, 2, and 5L.
- p. 14 Results, Somatomotor topography
The histological estimates of areas 1, 3, and 4 (Geyer et al. 1996, 1999) are sandwiched between areas 2 and 6 and are not shown.
Judge's note: The Fig. 19 legend (p. 19) reads 'probabilistic maps of areas 6, 2, and 5L'. The Results (p. 14) say areas 1, 3 and 4 'are sandwiched between areas 2 and 6 and are not shown' and conclude the network 'likely includes MI (area 4)' by inference. So the Discussion's 'shows' overstates what the figure contains. This is a wording issue only; the inference itself is reasonable.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Discussion (p. 35): 'PGpd is distinguished by prominent functional coupling to limbic regions including PCC, RSP, and PHC', whereas the Results (p. 24) attribute the stronger RSP/PHC coupling to PGpv, and the later Discussion also names RSP/PHC as what distinguishes PGpv.
- p. 35 Discussion, Association Cortices Are Nexuses..., right column
PGpd is distinguished by prominent functional coupling to limbic regions including PCC, RSP, and PHC.
- p. 24 Results, Parietal association cortex, right column
PGpv has comparatively stronger corre-lation to retrosplenial cortex (RSP) and parahippocampal complex (PHC)
- p. 28 Fig. 30, PGpd vs PGpv polar plots
PGpd
- p. 35 Discussion, association cortices nexuses
PGpd is distinguished by prominent functional coupling to limbic regions including PCC, RSP, and PHC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The Discussion sentence contrasts PGpd with IPS3l across networks, so it is not strictly contradictory. However, the Results (p. 24) say 'PGpv has comparatively stronger correlation to RSP and PHC' and that 'PGpd has the strongest correlation with PFCm'. In the Fig. 30 polar plots (p. 28), PGpd shows strong PCC coupling but weaker RSP and especially PHC values than PGpv. The later Discussion paragraph (p. 35) again gives RSP/PHC to PGpv. The authors should say whether PGpd or PGpv was intended as the example of RSP/PHC coupling.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Frontal-cortex Results: "Eleven regions were carried forward from the previous analysis of the parietal cortex (e.g., IPS2, SPL7A, FEF, PrCv, aMT+, and MT+), and these were arranged in the same spatial locations in the polar plots (anterior cingulate cortex clockwise to pCun)". Four of the six examples are not among the shared-position targets.
- p. 25 Results, Frontal association cortex
Eleven regions were carried forward from the previous analysis of the parietal cortex (e.g., IPS2, SPL7A, FEF, PrCv, aMT+, and MT+), and these were arranged in the same spatial locations in the polar plots (anterior cingulate cortex clockwise to pCun)
- p. 27 Fig. 31 polar-plot target labels
PrCv
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I compared Fig. 30 (p. 28) with Fig. 31 (p. 29). The 11 targets at the same polar positions are Cinga, PFCmp, STS, STSp, ITG, aMT+, MT+, PHC, RSP, PCC and pCun. In Fig. 31, FEF and PrCv are seeds, not targets. IPS2 and SPL7A are targets but sit on the other side of the plot. Only aMT+ and MT+ fit the description. The example list looks copied from the seed-region list in the Table 4 footnote.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Discussion (p. 30) places the dorsal central/peripheral boundary in 'the hemifield maps dorsal and lateral to V3v, possibly including V3A, V3B, and V7'; V3d may have been intended as the reference point.
- p. 30 Discussion, Visual Cortex..., left column
cut through the hemifield maps dorsal and lateral to V3v, possibly including V3A, V3B, and V7
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: V3A, V3B and V7 lie next to dorsal V3 (V3d), not ventral V3 (V3v). The page image shows the quoted text as printed. Elsewhere the paper uses V3v only for the ventral seed regions (V3cv/V3pv, Fig. 18), and this sentence is about the dorsal boundary, so 'V3v' reads oddly here. A region dorsal to V3d is also dorsal to V3v in a loose sense, though, so the authors should confirm which reference area they meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Missing article: "Each region consisted of single surface vertex" should read "of a single surface vertex".
- p. 9 Methods, Correlation Maps
Each region consisted of single surface vertex
Judge's note: The p. 9 image shows the sentence exactly as quoted. The article is missing.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Discussion: "between V1c and V3c (as well as between V1p and V3p)" uses V3c/V3p, but the seeds are defined as V3cv and V3pv.
- p. 30 Discussion, Visual Cortex section
between V1c and V3c (as well as between V1p and V3p)
- p. 17 Table 1
V3cv
- p. 18 Fig. 17 axis labels
V3 cv
Judge's note: The p. 30 image shows 'V3c' and 'V3p'. Table 1 and Fig. 16 on p. 17 define V3cv and V3pv. The meaning can be recovered, but the labels do not match the defined notation.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 22 legend: "V1pd and V1pd were selected in dorsal and ventral peripheral V1". The second label should be V1pv.
- p. 21 Fig. 22 legend, panel A
V1pd and V1pd were selected in dorsal and ventral peripheral V1
Judge's note: The p. 21 image shows the subscript 'pd' twice. Table 2 and the panel A labels give V1pd and V1pv.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 2, SPL7P row: coordinates printed "−14, −68,64" with no space after the second comma.
- p. 21 Table 2, SPL7P row
−14, −68,64
Judge's note: Visible in the p. 21 Table 2 image. Every other row uses ', '. Cosmetic only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 29A labels the seed "V1p", while panels B–E and the text use "V1pd"; V1p is a separate seed in Table 1.
- p. 26 Fig. 29A label
V1p
- p. 21 Results text
six seed regions (V1pd, V3A, MT+, aMT+, SPL7A, and FEF)
Judge's note: On p. 26, panel A shows 'V1p' and panels B–E show 'V1pd'. On p. 17, Table 1 defines V1p (−16, −74, 7) as a different seed from V1pd in Table 2 (−18, −70, 8).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 4 STS coordinates printed "−55, −10 −16", missing the comma between y and z.
- p. 27 Table 4, Occipital/temporal cortex, STS
−55, −10 −16
- p. 21 Table 2, SPL7P row
−14, −68,64
Judge's note: Visible in the p. 27 Table 4 image. Every other triplet is comma-separated. The SPL7P spacing point raised here is handled in C009.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Ungrammatical phrase: "regions within their network as contrast to regions outside their network" (should be "in contrast to").
- p. 22 Hierarchical analysis closing paragraph
within their network as contrast to regions outside their
Judge's note: The p. 22 image shows the phrase exactly as quoted.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 35 legend: 'each component of the network recapitulates components the remaining network' is missing 'of' ('components of the remaining network').
- p. 34 Fig. 35 legend
recapitulates components the remaining network
Judge's note: Visible in the Fig. 35 legend on the p. 34 crop. The word 'of' is missing.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In-text citation 'Suzuki et al. 1994' (p. 35) refers to a two-author entry, 'Suzuki WA, Amaral DG ... J Comp Neurol 350: 497-533, 1994'; it should read 'Suzuki and Amaral 1994'.
- p. 35 Discussion, Association Cortices Are Nexuses
Seltzer and Pandya 1994; Suzuki et al. 1994)
- p. 41 Reference list
Suzuki WA, Amaral DG. Perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices of the macaque monkey: cortical afferents.
- p. 35 Discussion, left column
Seltzer and Pandya 1994; Suzuki et al. 1994
- p. 41 Reference list
Suzuki WA, Amaral DG. Perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices of the
Judge's note: The p. 35 crop shows 'Suzuki et al. 1994'. The reference list on p. 41 has a single Suzuki 1994 entry, with two authors (Suzuki WA, Amaral DG). The only other Suzuki entry is Lavenex, Suzuki, Amaral 2002. The citation format does not match the entry.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The Hinds et al. 2008 reference lists 'Polimeni JP', whereas the article's author line ('Jonathan R. Polimeni') and the other references give 'Polimeni JR'.
- p. 39 Reference list, Hinds OP et al. 2008
Hinds OP, Rajendran N, Polimeni JP, Augustinack JC
Judge's note: The p. 39 crop shows 'Hinds OP, Rajendran N, Polimeni JP, Augustinack JC'. The Hinds 2009 entry directly above it has 'Polimeni JR', as do the Polimeni 2005 and 2010 entries on p. 40.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Polimeni et al. 2005 reference: 'Wald L, Dale AM L, Fischl B, Schwartz EL.' has a stray initial 'L' after Dale AM (presumably 'Wald LL, Dale AM').
- p. 40 Reference list, Polimeni JR et al. 2005
L, Dale AM L, Fischl B, Schwartz EL.
Judge's note: The p. 40 crop shows 'van der Kouwe AJW, Wald / L, Dale AM L, Fischl B'. It is printed in the page image, so it is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Rousseeuw 1987 reference: 'J Comput Appl Math. 20: 1987.' has no page numbers, and the stray period after the journal name departs from the house style.
- p. 40 Reference list
of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math. 20: 1987.
Judge's note: The p. 40 image (crop C021-c) shows the entry exactly as quoted. Every other journal entry nearby gives a page range.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The reference 'Seltzer B, Pandya DN. Further observations on parieto-temporal connections in the rhesus monkey. Exp Brain Res 55: 301-312, 1984' has no in-text citation.
- p. 41 Reference list
Seltzer B, Pandya DN. Further observations on parieto-temporal connections
Judge's note: The p. 41 crop shows the entry. A text search for Seltzer and Pandya finds only 'Pandya and Seltzer (1982)' and 'Seltzer and Pandya 1994' (p. 35), plus the reference-list entries. No 1984 citation of Seltzer appears in the text or figure legends. Either the citation is missing or the entry is superfluous; only the authors can say which.
Second check: none (judge only)