Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Voxel-Level Brain States Prediction Using Swin Transformer

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a 4D Swin Transformer encoder with a convolutional decoder can predict future voxel-level resting-state fMRI brain states, forecasting the next 10 volumes with a masked mean squared error of 0.035 and a structural…

desk verdict A plausible Swin-Transformer forecasting architecture, but the reported accuracy is uninterpretable without a persistence baseline, and the z-score normalization leaks future statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11455 v1 pith:MBJU4GRV submitted 2025-06-13 q-bio.NC cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG

Yifei Sun , Daniel Chahine , Qinghao Wen , Tianming Liu , Xiang Li , Yixuan Yuan , Fernando Calamante , Jinglei Lv This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords brainstatepredictionresting-statefMRISwinTransformervoxel-levelBOLDsignalspatiotemporalmodelingstructuralsimilarityforecasting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that a 4D Shifted Window (Swin) Transformer encoder coupled with a convolutional decoder can predict future resting-state fMRI brain states at full voxel resolution. Using 32 consecutive brain volumes as input, the model forecasts the next 10 volumes (7.2 seconds) with a masked mean squared error of 0.035 and a structural similarity score of 0.954 on held-out subjects. If correct, this would show that transformers can learn fine-grained spatiotemporal brain dynamics rather than only regional or task-related patterns. The authors also report that shuffling the input order destroys performance, arguing the model relies on temporal dependencies, and that predictions degrade with forecast horizon. This matters because accurate voxel-level forecasting could shorten fMRI scan times and inform brain-computer interfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the 4D SwiFT encoder, a Swin Transformer variant that partitions each input volume-time block into 3x3x3x4 patches and applies shifted-window self-attention in four hierarchical stages, with patch merging reducing resolution as the model deepens. On top of this encoder sits a decoder built from three 3D transposed convolutional layers plus two U-Net-style skip connections, which combine temporal and channel dimensions so that the decoder's output channels are treated as predicted time points. Training minimizes masked MSE plus twice the SSIM loss, so the model is explicitly optimized to preserve both voxel intensities and local spatial structure.

What would settle it

Re-run the prediction with a causal normalization in which each window's voxel statistics are computed only from the 32 input time points, and evaluate on non-overlapping windows. If the masked MSE rises to the level of the shifted MSE or of a last-volume persistence baseline, then the reported 0.035 is inflated by the leakage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spatiotemporal organization of the resting human brain can be learned at voxel resolution well enough to extrapolate it forward in time. On 20 held-out HCP subjects, the model takes 32 consecutive brain states (23.04 s) and predicts the next 10 states (7.2 s), achieving an overall masked MSE of 0.035 and an SSIM of 0.954 averaged over all test samples and predicted time points. The paper further reports that randomly shuffling the 32 input states raises the masked MSE to 4890, and that comparing predictions to the previous ground-truth state (shifted MSE) yields roughly twice the prediction error, which the authors take as evidence that the model generates new states rather than copying the last input volume. Regional analysis shows errors concentrate in limbic areas such as the orbitofrontal cortex, which the authors attribute to variability and signal artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that z-scoring each voxel's full time series — including the future segment to be predicted — before building the input/output windows does not leak future information into the model, and that it correctly measures forecasting ability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Voxel-level forecasting of resting-state BOLD activity is achievable with a transformer, extending prior region-based predictions to full 3D volumes.
  • Prediction error grows with horizon, so short-horizon forecasts (first five states) are much more reliable than later ones, consistent with accumulating uncertainty.
  • Regions in dorsal attention and control networks predict better than limbic regions, suggesting the model exploits structured intrinsic dynamics where they exist.
  • The same encoder-decoder could forecast other 4D biomedical volumes, provided the evaluation avoids information leakage.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported 0.035 masked MSE likely understates the true prediction error because each voxel's time series is z-scored using its full duration, including the future segment; a causal normalization evaluated on non-overlapping windows is needed to know how much of the accuracy is real.
  • If the leakage is confirmed, the qualitative similarity of predicted and ground-truth volumes may remain, but the model's advantage over a persistence baseline would shrink; the shifted-MSE control is a step in this direction but not a complete one.
  • The regional error pattern could be tested directly: comparing prediction error in OFC/temporal pole against a local signal-quality map (e.g., temporal SNR) would separate artifact-driven errors from genuine unpredictability.
  • The architecture's capacity suggests a natural next experiment: pretrain the encoder on a larger HCP cohort or on task fMRI, then fine-tune for prediction, which might extend the reliable horizon beyond 7.2 seconds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a voxel-level fMRI brain-state forecasting architecture consisting of a 4D Swin Transformer (SwiFT) encoder and a convolutional decoder with skip connections. Using 100 unrelated HCP subjects (80 training, 20 testing), the model takes 32 consecutive brain volumes (23.04 s) and predicts the next 10 volumes (7.2 s). Preprocessing includes smoothing, band-pass filtering, z-scoring, and downsampling to 48x48x48. The model is trained with a combined masked MSE and SSIM loss. The authors report an overall masked MSE of 0.035 and SSIM of 0.954 on the held-out test set, show that shuffling input order increases MSE dramatically, and report a shifted MSE of 0.076. Regional analysis using the Yeo17 atlas shows variation across brain regions.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is validated, the paper would demonstrate that a transformer-based model can learn fine-grained spatiotemporal brain dynamics at voxel resolution, with potential applications in reducing scan time and in brain-computer interfaces. The manuscript has several strengths: the architecture is described in detail, evaluation is performed on held-out subjects, multiple control analyses are attempted, and the qualitative and regional analyses are informative. However, the central quantitative claim is not yet supported because the evaluation lacks trivial forecasting baselines, the normalization procedure may leak future information, and overlapping windows are treated as independent samples. These issues need to be addressed before the prediction accuracy claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [II-A, II-C] The z-score normalization is applied to each voxel's full time course before sliding-window sampling, so the global mean and standard deviation used to scale the input windows are computed from data that include the 10 future time points being predicted. This makes the forecasting task easier and can artificially lower the reported masked MSE. Please re-run the evaluation with normalization parameters estimated only from training windows (or from a preceding calibration segment) and report the resulting metrics.
  2. [III-B] The headline claim that the model 'successfully predicted the next 10 brain states with an overall masked MSE of 0.035' is not interpretable without a trivial forecasting baseline. Because the BOLD data were band-pass filtered (0.01-0.1 Hz) and spatially smoothed (6 mm FWHM), adjacent volumes are highly correlated; a persistence predictor that outputs the last input volume could plausibly achieve masked MSE at or below 0.035, especially for the first predicted states where Fig. 3A shows MSE below 0.01. The shifted MSE (0.076) only demonstrates that the predictions are not identical to the immediately preceding true volume; it does not compare against persistence. Please include per-time-point baselines such as copy-last-frame, per-voxel mean, and linear extrapolation.
  3. [II-C, III-B] The sliding-window procedure generates heavily overlapping samples from the same 20 test subjects, and all samples are pooled as independent observations in the reported MSE, boxplots, and regional statistics. This pseudo-replication overstates the amount of independent evidence and narrows apparent confidence. Please aggregate metrics at the subject level (e.g., average over windows within each subject before pooling) and report the number of windows per subject, or use non-overlapping test windows.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-B] The shuffled-input MSE of 4890 is reported without explaining its scale relative to the z-scored prediction MSE; please clarify the units and why the increase is so large, as this comparison is otherwise difficult to interpret.
  2. [II-C] The SSIM constants c1 and c2 are described as 'the default value for SSIM calculation not scaled by the pixel intensity range'; since the data are z-scored, please state explicitly how the constants relate to the intensity range of the transformed data.
  3. [II-B] The text reads 'three 3D transpose convolutional layers' and should read 'three 3D transposed convolutional layers'.
  4. [I, V] The phrase 'novel architecture' may overstate the contribution relative to the close adaptation of the existing SwiFT encoder; consider qualifying the novelty as the application and decoder design for forecasting.
  5. [III-A] Training is described as running for 24 epochs without early stopping or a validation-based model selection criterion; please state whether the final model was selected by training loss convergence or by held-out validation performance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central prediction claim is evaluated on held-out subjects; the self-citation to prior region-level transformer work is motivational, not foundational.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance result: a SwiFT encoder plus convolutional decoder predicts 10 future voxel-level fMRI volumes from 32 input volumes, with a held-out test masked MSE of 0.035 and SSIM of 0.954. This result is not derived from its inputs by construction. The training loss (masked MSE plus SSIM loss, Eq. 5) coincides with the evaluation metrics, but evaluation is performed on 20 unseen subjects after training on 80 subjects, so the metric is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation, [21], is used to motivate the voxel-level extension ('In our previous work [21], we leveraged a basic transformer model for brain state prediction based on 379 brain regions') and to note that error growth with prediction horizon was 'also been found for region-based brain state prediction [21]'; neither use is load-bearing for the architecture or the reported numbers. SwiFT [18] is cited as external prior work, not as an author-invented uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The shifted-MSE control (Section II-D) is a weak baseline rather than a circular step; it does not reduce to the input by definition. The full-scan z-score normalization (Section II-A: 'time series at each voxel were z-score transformed to have zero temporal mean and unit standard deviation') together with the absence of a persistence baseline are validity and interpretability concerns about leakage and benchmark strength, but they do not make the held-out prediction equivalent to its training inputs. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations, not an actual circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on evaluation choices: full-scan z-score normalization, overlapping windows, and preprocessing that increases temporal smoothness. These are not independent external benchmarks, and the architecture hyperparameters are chosen by hand without ablation. No new physical or biological entity is introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • SSIM loss weight alpha = 2
    Set by hand in Section II-C to scale SSIM loss to the initial masked MSE scale; no ablation or search is reported.
  • Input window length T = 32 volumes (23.04 s)
    Chosen in Section II-B/C; no ablation on window length is reported.
  • Output horizon T' = 10 volumes (7.2 s)
    Chosen in Section II-B; the paper does not test other horizons.
  • Patch and window sizes = Patch 3x3x3x4, window size 4
    Architecture hyperparameters in Section II-B; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Embedding dimension and stage depths = E=36; layers/heads 2x3, 6x6, 2x12
    Architecture hyperparameters in Section II-B; no search or ablation reported.
  • Optimizer and training schedule = Adam lr=1e-4, 24 epochs
    Training choices in Section II-C; no validation-based early stopping is described, and the final epoch appears to be a fixed stopping point.
  • Preprocessing bandwidth and smoothing = FWHM 6 mm; bandpass 0.01-0.1 Hz
    Preprocessing choices in Section II-A that increase temporal autocorrelation and make prediction easier; no ablation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BOLD signal is a valid proxy for neural activity and defines brain states.
    Standard fMRI premise used throughout the paper; not proven here.
  • ad hoc to paper Z-scoring each voxel over the entire scan, including future time points, is acceptable for a forecasting evaluation.
    Section II-A applies z-score normalization before Section II-C creates sliding windows, so the normalization statistics include the future values being predicted.
  • ad hoc to paper Heavily overlapping sliding windows from the same subject can be treated as independent samples for computing MSE.
    Section II-C generates many overlapping windows per scan; test metrics average over all windows without accounting for within-subject temporal correlation.
  • domain assumption Spatial smoothing and bandpass filtering do not trivialize the prediction task.
    These preprocessing steps in Section II-A strongly smooth the data, so low prediction error may reflect temporal autocorrelation rather than learned dynamics; no baseline is provided.
  • domain assumption A single 80/20 subject split with both phase-encoding scans per subject is sufficient to establish generalizable performance.
    Section II-C reports a random subject split but no validation set, repeated splits, or cross-validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Voxel-Level Brain States Prediction Using Swin Transformer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBJU4GRV

@misc{pith2026250611455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Voxel-Level Brain States Prediction Using Swin Transformer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBJU4GRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11455}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding brain dynamics is important for neuroscience and mental health. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) enables the measurement of neural activities through blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signals, which represent brain states. In this study, we aim to predict future human resting brain states with fMRI. Due to the 3D voxel-wise spatial organization and temporal dependencies of the fMRI data, we propose a novel architecture which employs a 4D Shifted Window (Swin) Transformer as encoder to efficiently learn spatio-temporal information and a convolutional decoder to enable brain state prediction at the same spatial and temporal resolution as the input fMRI data. We used 100 unrelated subjects from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) for model training and testing. Our novel model has shown high accuracy when predicting 7.2s resting-state brain activities based on the prior 23.04s fMRI time series. The predicted brain states highly resemble BOLD contrast and dynamics. This work shows promising evidence that the spatiotemporal organization of the human brain can be learned by a Swin Transformer model, at high resolution, which provides a potential for reducing the fMRI scan time and the development of brain-computer interfaces in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The summary of our model architecture. Our model has an encoder-decoder structure with skip connections linking them. The encoder is the SwiFT and the decoder contains transpose convolutional and convolutional layers to up-sample the data to generate predictions. W, H, and D are the spatial dimensions of the input fMRI volumes. T is the number of consecutive brain states in the input. T’ is the number of output brai… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Holistic atlases of functional networks and interactions reveal reciprocal organizational architecture of cortical function,

    J. Lv et al., "Holistic atlases of functional networks and interactions reveal reciprocal organizational architecture of cortical function," IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1120 -1131, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Unveiling complex brain dynamics during movie viewing via deep recurrent autoencoder model,

    K. Wang et al., "Unveiling complex brain dynamics during movie viewing via deep recurrent autoencoder model," Neuroimage, vol. 310, pp. 121177-121177, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Modeling spatio -temporal patterns of holistic functional brain networks via multi -head guided attention graph neural networks (Multi-Head GAGNNs),

    J. Yan et al. , "Modeling spatio -temporal patterns of holistic functional brain networks via multi -head guided attention graph neural networks (Multi-Head GAGNNs)," Medical Image Analysis, vol. 80, p. 102518, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Characterization of task-free and task-performance brain states via functional connectome patterns,

    X. Zhang et al., "Characterization of task-free and task-performance brain states via functional connectome patterns," Medical image analysis, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1106-1122, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Effective connectivity of the anterior hippocampus predicts recollection confidence during natural memory retrieval,

    Y. Ren et al., "Effective connectivity of the anterior hippocampus predicts recollection confidence during natural memory retrieval," Nature communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4875, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Spatiotemporal attention autoencoder (STAAE) for ADHD classification,

    Q. Dong, N. Qiang, J. Lv, X. Li, T. Liu, and Q. Li, "Spatiotemporal attention autoencoder (STAAE) for ADHD classification," in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention –MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4 –8, 2020, Proceedings, Part VII 23, 2020: Springer, pp. 508-517

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Connectome -scale group -wise consistent resting -state network analysis in autism spectrum disorder,

    Y. Zhao et al. , "Connectome -scale group -wise consistent resting -state network analysis in autism spectrum disorder," NeuroImage: Clinical, vol. 12, pp. 23-33, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Assessing effects of prenatal alcohol exposure using group - wise sparse representation of fMRI data,

    J. Lv et al., "Assessing effects of prenatal alcohol exposure using group - wise sparse representation of fMRI data," Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, vol. 233, no. 2, pp. 254-268, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation,

    S. Ogawa, T. -M. Lee, A. R. Kay, and D. W. Tank, "Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation," proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 87, no. 24, pp. 9868-9872, 1990, doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.24.9868

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    Sparse representation of whole -brain fMRI signals for identification of functional networks,

    J. Lv et al. , "Sparse representation of whole -brain fMRI signals for identification of functional networks," Medical image analysis, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 112-134, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Latent source mining in FMRI via restricted Boltzmann machine,

    X. Hu et al., "Latent source mining in FMRI via restricted Boltzmann machine," Human brain mapping, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 2368-2380, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Modeling hierarchical brain networks via volumetric sparse deep belief network,

    Q. Dong et al. , "Modeling hierarchical brain networks via volumetric sparse deep belief network," IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 1739-1748, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Spatio -temporal modeling of connectome -scale brain network interactions via time-evolving graphs,

    J. Yuan et al. , "Spatio -temporal modeling of connectome -scale brain network interactions via time-evolving graphs," Neuroimage, vol. 180, pp. 350-369, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.067

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    An explainable deep learning framework for characterizing and interpreting human brain states,

    S. Zhang et al. , "An explainable deep learning framework for characterizing and interpreting human brain states," Medical Image Analysis, vol. 83, p. 102665, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A brain -computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control,

    S. N. Flesher et al. , "A brain -computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control," Science, vol. 372, no. 6544, pp. 831-836, 2021, doi: 10.1126/science.abd0380

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani et al. , "Attention is all you need," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    GPT-4 Technical Report,

    OpenAI, "GPT-4 Technical Report," ArXiv, vol. abs/2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    SwiFT: Swin 4D fMRI Transformer,

    P. Kim et al., "SwiFT: Swin 4D fMRI Transformer," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    BrainLM: A foundation model for brain activity recordings,

    J. Ortega Caro et al., "BrainLM: A foundation model for brain activity recordings," bioRxiv, p. 2023.09. 12.557460, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Brain -jepa: Brain dynamics foundation model with gradient positioning and spatiotemporal masking,

    Z. Dong et al. , "Brain -jepa: Brain dynamics foundation model with gradient positioning and spatiotemporal masking," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 86048-86073, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Predicting Human Brain States with Transformer,

    Y. Sun et al., "Predicting Human Brain States with Transformer," Cham, 2025: Springer Nature Switzerland, in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2024 Workshops, pp. 136 - 146

    2025

  14. [22]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu et al. , "Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows," in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10012-10022

    2021

  15. [23]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy et al., "An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale," arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The WU -Minn human connectome project: an overview,

    D. C. Van Essen et al., "The WU -Minn human connectome project: an overview," Neuroimage, vol. 80, pp. 62 -79, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project,

    M. F. Glasser et al., "The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project," Neuroimage, vol. 80, pp. 105 -124, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.127

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, "U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation," in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention –MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5 -9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18,...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, "Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity," IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600-612, 2004, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2003.819861

    2004

  20. [28]

    Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic functional connectivity MRI,

    A. Schaefer et al., "Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic functional connectivity MRI," Cerebral cortex, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 3095-3114, 2018, doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhx179

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity,

    B. Thomas Yeo et al., "The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity," Journal of neurophysiology, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 1125 -1165, 2011, doi: 10.1152/jn.00338.2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Markov chain and its applications,

    J. I. Agbinya, "Markov chain and its applications," in Applied Data Analytics-Principles and Applications: River Publishers, 2022, pp. 1-15

    2022

  23. [31]

    Convergent functional architecture of the superior parietal lobule unraveled with multimodal neuroimaging approaches,

    J. Wang et al., "Convergent functional architecture of the superior parietal lobule unraveled with multimodal neuroimaging approaches," Human brain mapping, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 238 -257, 2015, doi: 10.1002/hbm.22626

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    The functional role of the inferior parietal lobe in the dorsal and ventral stream dichotomy,

    V. Singh-Curry and M. Husain, "The functional role of the inferior parietal lobe in the dorsal and ventral stream dichotomy," Neuropsychologia, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1434 -1448, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.033

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    Role of the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in anxiety and cognition: Opportunities for intervention for anxiety -related disorders,

    L. Brown, L. K. White, W. Makhoul, M. Teferi, Y. I. Sheline, and N. L. Balderston, "Role of the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) in anxiety and cognition: Opportunities for intervention for anxiety -related disorders," International journal of clinical and health psychology, vol. 23...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Neuroanatomy, postcentral gyrus,

    J. DiGuiseppi and P. Tadi, "Neuroanatomy, postcentral gyrus," in StatPearls [internet]: StatPearls Publishing, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Investigating the sub -regions of the superior parietal cortex using functional magnetic resonance imaging connectivity,

    A. A. Alahmadi, "Investigating the sub -regions of the superior parietal cortex using functional magnetic resonance imaging connectivity," Insights into imaging, vol. 12, pp. 1-12, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13244-021- 00993-9

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Association between functional connectivity hubs and brain networks,

    D. Tomasi and N. D. Volkow, "Association between functional connectivity hubs and brain networks," Cerebral cortex, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2003-2013, 2011, doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq268

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    Inhibition of the inferior parietal lobe triggers state - dependent network adaptations,

    K. A. Williams, O. Numssen, J. D. Guerra, J. Kopal, D. Bzdok, and G. Hartwigsen, "Inhibition of the inferior parietal lobe triggers state - dependent network adaptations," Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 21, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39735

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Structural and functional integrity of the intraparietal sulcus in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury,

    C. Sours et al. , "Structural and functional integrity of the intraparietal sulcus in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury," Journal of neurotrauma, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1473 -1481, 2017, doi: 10.1089/neu.2016.4570

    2017

  31. [39]

    D. S. Younger, Motor System Disorders, Part I: Normal Physiology and Function and Neuromuscular Disorders. Elsevier, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Low -frequency fluctuations of the resting brain: high magnitude does not equal high reliability,

    D. Mao et al. , "Low -frequency fluctuations of the resting brain: high magnitude does not equal high reliability," PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 6, p. e0128117, 2015, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128117. 9

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    The functions of the orbitofrontal cortex,

    E. T. Rolls, "The functions of the orbitofrontal cortex," Brain and cognition, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 11 -29, 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0278 - 2626(03)00277-X

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    The temporal pole: From anatomy to function—A literature appraisal,

    B. Herlin, V. Navarro, and S. Dupont, "The temporal pole: From anatomy to function—A literature appraisal," Journal of chemical neuroanatomy, vol. 113, p. 101925, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2021.101925

    2021

  35. [43]

    The parahippocampal cortex mediates contextual associative memory: Evidence from an fMRI study,

    M. Li, S. Lu, and N. Zhong, "The parahippocampal cortex mediates contextual associative memory: Evidence from an fMRI study," BioMed research international, vol. 2016, no. 1, p. 9860604, 2016, doi: 10.1155/2016/9860604

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Brain dynamics: the temporal variability of connectivity, and differences in schizophrenia and ADHD,

    E. T. Rolls, W. Cheng, and J. Feng, "Brain dynamics: the temporal variability of connectivity, and differences in schizophrenia and ADHD," Translational Psychiatry, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 70, 2021/01/21 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01197-x

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    The junction between self and other? Temporo -parietal dysfunction in neuropsychiatry,

    C. M. Eddy, "The junction between self and other? Temporo -parietal dysfunction in neuropsychiatry," Neuropsychologia, vol. 89, pp. 465-477, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.07.030

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    The insular cortex,

    N. Gogolla, "The insular cortex," Current Biology, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. R580-R586, 2017/06/19/ 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.010

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Chapter 16 - Brain Processing of Gastrointestinal Sensory Signaling,

    A. D. Farmer, J. K. Ruffle, and Q. Aziz, "Chapter 16 - Brain Processing of Gastrointestinal Sensory Signaling," in Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract (Sixth Edition) , H. M. Said Ed.: Academic Press, 2018, pp. 373-385

    2018

  40. [48]

    Mapping the orbitofrontal cortex using temporal fluctuations in cerebral blood flow,

    K. J. Petersen, M. J. Donahue, and D. O. Claassen, "Mapping the orbitofrontal cortex using temporal fluctuations in cerebral blood flow," Brain and Behavior, vol. 11, no. 3, p. e02034, 2021, doi: 10.1002/brb3.2034

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    The function of the left anterior temporal pole: evidence from acute stroke and infarct volume,

    K. Tsapkini, C. E. Frangakis, and A. E. Hillis, "The function of the left anterior temporal pole: evidence from acute stroke and infarct volume," (in eng), Brain, vol. 134, no. Pt 10, pp. 3094 -105, Oct 2011, doi: 10.1093/brain/awr050

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Engagement of the medial temporal lobe in verbal and nonverbal memory: assessment with functional MR imaging in healthy subjects,

    C. Rosazza et al., "Engagement of the medial temporal lobe in verbal and nonverbal memory: assessment with functional MR imaging in healthy subjects," American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1134- 1141, 2009, doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1518

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.