It is possible that some degree-based hubs (like those in the pre

It is possible that some degree-based hubs (like those in the precuneus) are provincial hubs that play central roles in particular systems.

It is also possible that these hubs do not have hub-like roles in information processing and that their “hubness” arises from the factors discussed above. We shall return to this topic. In the areal network, nodes represent our current best estimate of buy Protease Inhibitor Library the centers of brain areas (Power et al., 2011). If a node has a high participation index, it has modest-to-high correlations with multiple communities. Since these communities correspond reasonably well to systems (Power et al., 2011), we infer that such nodes likely have access to a variety of types of different information processing represented among different systems. In the modified voxelwise network, nodes do not correspond to any “unit” of brain organization. Here, the peaks in community density represent points of spatial articulation between multiple brain systems. These peaks do not represent areas but rather locations where areas from multiple systems exist in close proximity to one another. Cortex in such regions does not necessarily compound screening assay integrate different types of information but would be well-situated to perform

such integration. Regions with high community density tend to have high participation coefficients (Figure 8A). Convergence between measures is especially prominent at some regions in the anterior insula, dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, dorsal prefrontal cortex, lateral occipito-temporal

cortex, and superior many parietal cortex. There are also some regions where the measures diverge, such as the inferior parietal sulcus (high participation coefficient, low community density) or the midcingulate (low participation coefficient, high community density). Differences between the measures in these latter regions may be of eventual interest, but our present focus is on regions where both measures are congruent. The methods advocated in this report generally highlight different parts of the brain than do degree-based methods. Indeed, community density and node strength (normalized and summed across thresholds) are negatively correlated (r = −0.37, Figure S8), as are participation coefficient and node strength (r = −0.12, Figure S8). No analog of community density exists in the real-world graphs, but the relationship between participation coefficient and node strength seen across networks in Figure S1 is instructive: it is strongly negative in the three real-world correlation networks, mildly negative in the RSFC networks and in a few real-world noncorrelation networks, but usually positive in real-world noncorrelation networks. This is consistent with the idea that RSFC networks occupy a conceptual space somewhere between the computer and birdsong networks of Figure 1.

Comments are closed.