4.6 Article

Identifying Shared Brain Networks in Individuals by Decoupling Functional and Anatomical Variability

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 4004-4014

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhv189

关键词

functional parcellation; individual differences; resting-state fMRI

资金

  1. NIH [K25NS069805, R01NS091604, P50MH106435]
  2. NIH NICHD [R01HD067312]
  3. NIH NIBIB NAC [P41EB015902]
  4. OeNB [14812, 15929]
  5. EU [2012-PIEF-GA-33003]
  6. NIH NIBIB [1K25EB013649-01]
  7. BrightFocus Alzheimer's disease pilot research grant [AHAF A2012333]
  8. Medical Imaging Cluster at Medical University of Vienna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The connectivity architecture of the human brain varies across individuals. Mapping functional anatomy at the individual level is challenging, but critical for basic neuroscience research and clinical intervention. Using resting-state functional connectivity, we parcellated functional systems in an embedding space based on functional characteristics common across the population, while simultaneously accounting for individual variability in the cortical distribution of functional units. The functional connectivity patterns observed in resting-state data were mapped in the embedding space and the maps were aligned across individuals. A clustering algorithm was performed on the aligned embedding maps and the resulting clusters were transformed back to the unique anatomical space of each individual. This novel approach identified functional systems that were reproducible within subjects, but were distributed across different anatomical locations in different subjects. Using this approach for intersubject alignment improved the predictability of individual differences in language laterality when compared with anatomical alignment alone. Our results further revealed that the strength of association between function and macroanatomy varied across the cortex, which was strong in unimodal sensorimotor networks, but weak in association networks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据