Quantifying the cost of network computations to unpack structure-function relationships in the brain

Dani S. Bassett; Fabio Pasqualetti; Jason Z. Kim; Panagiotis Fotiadis; Suman S. Kulkarni

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Quantifying the cost of network computations to unpack structure-function relationships in the brain

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A network's cheapest computations are read off from its inverse controllability Gramian; in a fly compass circuit, the cheapest is the heading update, and the same landscape explains human cortical specialization and learning-driven change.

desk verdict Useful reframing of standard control theory with an elegant ring-attractor result, but the human and RNN analyses rest on unstated linearization choices that the paper needs to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29537 v1 pith:KF3F4PIX submitted 2026-07-31 q-bio.NC physics.bio-ph

Suman S. Kulkarni , Jason Z. Kim , Panagiotis Fotiadis , Fabio Pasqualetti , Dani S. Bassett This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.NCphysics.bio-ph

keywords computationalaffordancelandscapecontrollabilityGramiannetworkcontroltheoryringattractorhead-directioncircuitsensorimotor-associationaxisrecurrentneuraltrainingstructure-functionrelationships

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

This paper tries to establish that the set of activity transitions a network can perform cheaply is fully determined by its structure, and that this 'computational affordance landscape' can be computed from standard control theory. It applies the idea to a Drosophila head-direction circuit, where the cheapest mode corresponds exactly to updating the heading representation and the optimal inputs match the known shift-neuron anatomy. It then shows that in human cortical networks, the heterogeneity of this landscape tracks the sensorimotor-association axis: sensory networks have heterogeneous cost landscapes, while association networks have flat, homogeneous ones. Finally, it shows that training recurrent neural networks on a single task progressively increases landscape heterogeneity, suggesting that learning sculpts which computations a network can do cheaply. If the framework holds, it gives a parameter-free structural account of why certain computations are easy for a given neural circuit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inverse controllability Gramian W^{-1}, called the computational affordance landscape. For linearized dynamics dr/dt = Wr + Bv, the minimum cost to reach a target state r_f from r_0 is C_min = (r_f − e^{WT}r_0)^T W^{-1}(r_f − e^{WT}r_0). When each node receives input independently (B = I) and W is symmetric, the cost of exciting each mode is 2λ_i/(e^{2λ_i T} − 1), so modes with eigenvalues near zero, i.e. the slowest modes, are the cheapest. In the ring attractor, marginal stability puts the bump-derivative mode in the kernel of the Jacobian, so rotation is the zero-cost direction; this is the load-bearing step that connects cheap computation to biological function.

What would settle it

Compute the affordance landscape for the same trained RNNs using the full Jacobian of Eq. (10), J = −I + W_rec diag(f'(r)), instead of W_rec alone, and check whether heterogeneity still increases monotonically across all five tasks; if the trend reverses or flattens, the 'learning sculpts the landscape' claim rests on the choice of linearization. For the fly circuit, a biophysical simulation that perturbs the bump in the predicted low-cost direction and measures the actual input energy would test whether heading rotation really is the cheapest computation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a network's structure, through the controllability Gramian W = ∫₀^T e^{Ws} BB^T e^{W^T s} ds, defines a 'computational affordance landscape' W^{-1} that ranks every possible activity transition by the minimum input energy needed to drive it. For a model ring-attractor compass circuit, this landscape has a single ultra-low-cost mode, which is exactly the derivative of the activity bump with respect to heading; the minimum-energy inputs that rotate the bump are an increase ahead of the bump and a decrease behind it, matching the fly's known shift-neuron anatomy. In human structural connectomes, the heterogeneity of the landscape, measured by the interquartile

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the matrix W used to build the Gramian genuinely captures the local dynamics of the network: for human connectomes this is the raw structural connectivity matrix with no specified equilibrium, and for trained RNNs it is the raw recurrent weight matrix rather than the full Jacobian, so if those matrices misrepresent the real dynamics, the reported cost landscape may not reflect actual computational costs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The relative ordering of computation costs follows directly from an eigendecomposition of the Gramian, so no task-specific simulation is needed to know what a circuit finds easy.
In the ring-attractor model, marginal stability is not incidental: the null direction is exactly the behavior the circuit must perform, making rotation the structurally cheapest computation.
Human sensory networks are wired so that a few activity modes are very cheap, while association networks keep costs flat across modes; the paper interprets this as specialization versus flexible, domain-general recombination.
Learning in recurrent networks progressively widens the spread of mode costs, implying that acquiring a single skill actively carves the landscape into easy and hard directions.
The oscillatory extension of the framework yields frequency-dependent cost landscapes, predicting which oscillation frequencies a circuit supports cheaply and where in the circuit those frequencies are routed.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not say this explicitly, but the same landscape can serve as a design target: one could choose or train a network's weights so that a desired computation falls in the low-cost subspace, and neuromodulation can be viewed as an online mechanism for reshuffling the landscape.
Because the human and RNN analyses use raw structural or recurrent weights rather than full Jacobians, recomputing the landscape from the correct local linearization, including the decay term and activation derivatives, is a natural stress test; the monotone training trend may depend on that choice.
The bilateral-symmetry result suggests a general principle linking structural symmetry to energy-efficient activity patterns, which could be tested across species and network scales using the same Gramian machinery.
The sensorimotor-association correlation is a single summary statistic; a stronger test would ask whether within-network functional diversity, such as the number of distinct low-cost modes, predicts behavioral variability across individuals.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the things you should know. The paper renames the inverse controllability Gramian as a "computational affordance landscape" and shows that the cost of a state transition is D^T W^{-1} D. That math is textbook. The new content is the set of applications: a ring-attractor model of Drosophila heading, a correlation with the S-A axis in human connectomes, and an increase in eigenvalue dispersion during RNN training. The ring-attractor section is the best part. The authors linearize the actual dynamics about a stable bump, identify the zero mode, and show it corresponds to rotating the bump; the optimal input pattern matches the known shift-neuron anatomy. That is a clean, genuinely satisfying result.

Where it gets soft: the human and RNN analyses do not linearize any dynamical system. For the HCP data, W is the raw streamline-count matrix, with no equilibrium, no decay term, and no justification for why that matrix plays the role of a Jacobian. For the RNNs, Eq. (10) implies the local Jacobian is -I + diag(f') W_rec, but the paper computes the landscape from W_rec directly. The stress-test is right that the IQR of Gramian eigenvalues is scale-sensitive, so the S-A correlation and the training trend could be driven by overall connection strength or network size rather than the shape of a genuine computational landscape. The authors regress out node count but not edge weight magnitude, and they do not test sensitivity to T=1 and B=I. These are not fatal to the framework, but they are load-bearing for the human and RNN claims.

Also, the ring-attractor "prediction" is not an independent empirical outcome. Because the bump family is continuously parameterized by heading, the derivative of the bump is necessarily in the kernel of the Jacobian. The paper essentially shows that the linearization inherits the model's symmetry. That is worth saying in the paper; it is a consistency check, not a falsifiable prediction. The authors do not overclaim too much, but the word "prediction" appears.

On balance: a capable, well-written paper, with a correct mathematical core and one beautiful application. The human and RNN sections need substantial revision before the empirical claims can be trusted. A serious referee should engage with it. I would accept it for peer review, but my own verdict would be conditional on the authors either justifying W as the relevant linearization or recomputing with a proper dynamical model and sensitivity analysis.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a control-theoretic framework for relating network structure to computational function. A computation is defined as an input-driven transition between activity states, and its minimum energy cost is expressed through the controllability Gramian (Eq. 3); the inverse Gramian defines a 'computational affordance landscape.' The framework is applied in three settings: a Drosophila ring-attractor model, where the cheapest mode is the derivative of the bump with respect to heading and the optimal input matches known shift-neuron anatomy; human HCP structural connectomes, where the IQR of the affordance spectrum correlates with the sensorimotor-association axis (r_S=-0.64, p=0.006); and trained RNNs, where landscape heterogeneity increases over training. The authors argue the framework unifies structure-function relationships across scales.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework is valuable: it provides a single quantitative object—the affordance landscape—that can be computed from network structure and compared to biological function across very different scales. The mathematical derivation of C_min is standard and correct, and the ring-attractor analysis is a clean demonstration that a continuous attractor's marginal mode is the cheapest to drive. The paper also ships openly available data and code, which strengthens reproducibility. The main significance would be the cross-scale unification, but this depends on the empirical sections being computed from the correct linearized dynamics rather than from raw weight matrices. The human and RNN results, in particular, are the broadest claims and currently rest on unstated modeling choices; those need to be fixed before the paper's central message is fully convincing.

major comments (3)

[Methods, 'Human Connectome Project (HCP) data' and 'Artificial recurrent neural networks'; Eq. (3)] The Gramian in Eq. (3) is defined from the Jacobian W of the linearized dynamics about an equilibrium. In the HCP analysis, W is taken to be the raw structural connectivity matrix (SIFT2-weighted streamline counts normalized by gray-matter volume), with no equilibrium, decay term, or input Jacobian specified. In the RNN analysis, the affordance landscape is computed from the raw recurrent weight matrix W_rec, although Eq. (10) implies a local Jacobian J = (-I + diag(f') W_rec)/tau at a fixed point (and something different along task trajectories). The Gramian eigenvalues and their IQR are not invariant to replacing J by W: a scale change in W alters e^{Ws} and hence the eigenvalue spread. The reported r_S=-0.64 and the training-time increase in Fig. 5c could therefore reflect raw connectivity strength or weight norm rather than the cost of actual computations. Because these are two of th
[Methods, 'Computing the affordance landscape'] The choices B=I and T=1 are adopted globally without sensitivity analysis. Eq. (5) explicitly depends on T, and the eigenvalue spread of the Gramian depends on B. For the HCP data, T=1 has no stated time unit, so the Gramian is not dimensionless and the IQR comparisons across networks may depend on the arbitrary choice of T. The ring-attractor result is likely robust, but the HCP heterogeneity ranking and the RNN training trend could change with T. Please provide a sensitivity sweep over T (and over B if the all-nodes-input assumption is relaxed), or give a principled argument for why the results are independent of these choices for the matrices studied.
[Supplementary Information Sec. 2, Eq. (26); Fig. 3d-e] The identification of bump rotation as the cheapest mode follows mathematically from the continuous family of fixed points: differentiating Eq. (22) with respect to theta shows that d h*/d theta is in the kernel of J, and since the mode cost decreases with the eigenvalue, the zero mode is automatically the cheapest. Thus the agreement with the known function of the circuit is a consistency check of the model's defining symmetry, not an independent empirical prediction. The paper should state this explicitly. The genuinely nontrivial outcome is the optimal-input profile in Fig. 3f-g, which matches the known shift-neuron anatomy and does not follow from the zero mode alone. Reframing the ring-attractor section in this way would strengthen, not weaken, the paper.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (3) and Methods, Eq. (8)] The same symbol W is used for the Jacobian matrix and for the controllability Gramian, which is confusing. Please use a distinct notation, e.g., A for the Jacobian and \mathcal{W} for the Gramian.
[Fig. 4c and 'Human Connectome Project (HCP) data'] The statistical unit for the Spearman correlation is unclear. The figure caption says 'Each point represents an individual subject' but then reports a single r_S and p. If the analysis uses network-level medians, the sample size is 17; if it pools all subjects, the points are not independent. Please clarify the exact test, the n used, and whether the p-value is corrected for the number of networks.
[Methods, 'Human Connectome Project (HCP) data'] It would help to state explicitly whether each Yeo network is treated as an induced submatrix of the full 400x400 structural connectivity matrix, and if so, how inter-network connections and inputs from other networks are modeled. This is a modeling choice that affects the interpretation of the network-specific affordance landscape.
[Methods, 'Ring attractor network'] The weight noise is described as 'small' but sigma=0.5 is not negligible compared to J_E=10 and J_I=-9. A sentence justifying this magnitude, or a brief robustness check, would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the ring-attractor result is a consistency check inherited from the model's symmetry, and the human/RNN analyses are independent empirical tests.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is self-contained. The affordance landscape is defined from the linearized Jacobian via the controllability Gramian (Eq. 3), and the cost formula (Eq. 4) is a direct application of linear control theory; no fitted parameters are used and no target outcome is fed back into the definition of the landscape. In the ring-attractor application, the fact that the lowest-cost mode is the derivative of the bump follows mathematically from the continuous family of fixed points: Eq. (26) shows that ∂h*/∂θ lies in the kernel of the Jacobian, so the marginal stability of the model makes rotation the cheapest mode. This makes the fly example a consistency check rather than an independent empirical prediction, but it is not circular: the landscape is computed from the Jacobian, the known biological function is not used as an input to that computation, and the optimal-input profile (Fig. 3f-g) is an additional derived quantity compared with external anatomy. The human connectome analysis computes an IQR of Gramian eigenvalues from structural connectivity and correlates it with the independently defined S-A axis; the RNN analysis tracks the same IQR over training. Neither analysis uses the claimed result to set parameters. The use of raw structural connectivity / W_rec rather than a linearized Jacobian in the HCP and RNN sections is a potential validity concern, not a circularity, because the reported quantities are still computed directly from the stated matrices. Self-citations for standard control-theoretic formulas are corroborated by classical references and are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework leans on standard control theory; the empirical load comes from the assumptions about what W represents and the arbitrary choices of T and B. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

T = 1
Time horizon for the Gramian integral; chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis. Changes the eigenvalue spectrum of the affordance landscape.
B = I
Input matrix assumed to be identity (each node receives independent input) in all applications; this strongly shapes the landscape.
Ring attractor noise scale σ = 0.5
Gaussian noise added to the weight matrix before symmetrization; chosen by hand, affects the numerical landscape.

assumptions (4)

standard math The controllability Gramian and minimum-energy control formula (Eqs. 7-8) are valid for the linearized dynamics.
Textbook result used throughout.
domain assumption For human connectomes, the structural connectivity matrix W can be used directly as the linearized dynamics matrix, with no explicit equilibrium or nonlinearity.
Methods: HCP data; this treats tractography weights as a linear dynamical system.
domain assumption For RNNs, the recurrent weight matrix W_rec is used as the linear dynamics matrix W in the Gramian.
Methods: Artificial recurrent neural networks; ignores the −I term and activation derivative in Eq. (10).
domain assumption Network assignments (Yeo atlas) and S-A axis ranks (Sydnor et al.) correctly represent functional roles.
Used for the S-A correlation in Fig. 4c.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying the cost of network computations to unpack structure-function relationships in the brain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KF3F4PIX

@misc{pith2026260729537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying the cost of network computations to unpack structure-function relationships in the brain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KF3F4PIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29537}
}

abstract

The brain supports computations through coordinated patterns of activity on an underlying network. These networks---from microscale navigational circuits in insects to macroscale brain areas in humans---are organized in structured ways that are thought to support their function. We seek a unifying quantitative framework to understand how network structure shapes the computations a network can readily support. To do so, we frame computation as a goal-directed transition of activity and quantify its cost on a given network using control theory. We then define the distribution of costs across all possible transitions as a $\textit{computational affordance landscape}$ that encodes which computations a network structure readily supports. We apply this framework to a circuit model for how insects maintain a sense of direction and show that updating orientation is the least costly computation, with predicted inputs consistent with known circuitry. In the human brain, we find that the affordance landscape varies systematically with the functional role of each network. Sensory networks display more heterogeneous landscapes (reflecting their role in specialized information processing), whereas association networks display more homogeneous landscapes (reflecting their role in generalized information processing). In recurrent neural networks trained on cognitive tasks, we show that learning progressively increases landscape heterogeneity, reshaping the distribution of affordable computations. Generally, we establish a quantitative framework for studying relationships between structure and computation in neural circuits, with future applications extending to other biological and physical networks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references

[1]

S.et al.Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 7641–7646 (2011)

Bassett, D. S.et al.Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 7641–7646 (2011)

2011
[2]

Rugg, M. D. & Vilberg, K. L. Brain networks underlying episodic memory retrieval.Current opinion in neurobiology23, 255–260 (2013)

2013
[3]

Bressler, S. L. & Menon, V . Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles.Trends in cognitive sciences14, 277–290 (2010)

2010
[4]

Xie, X., Hahnloser, R. H. & Seung, H. S. Double-ring network model of the head-direction system.Physical Review E66, 041902 (2002)

2002
[5]

& Friston, K

Park, H.-J. & Friston, K. Structural and functional brain networks: from connections to cog- nition.Science342, 1238411 (2013)

2013
[6]

& Bassett, D

Kulkarni, S. & Bassett, D. S. Toward principles of brain network organization and function. Annual Review of Biophysics54(2025)

2025
[7]

Bassett, D. S. & Sporns, O. Network neuroscience.Nature neuroscience20, 353–364 (2017)

2017
[8]

D., Sussillo, D

Vyas, S., Golub, M. D., Sussillo, D. & Shenoy, K. V . Computation through neural population dynamics.Annual review of neuroscience43, 249–275 (2020)

2020

Show all 77 references

[9]

V ., Sahani, M

Shenoy, K. V ., Sahani, M. & Churchland, M. M. Cortical control of arm movements: a dynamical systems perspective.Annual review of neuroscience36, 337–359 (2013)

2013
[10]

Turner-Evans, D.et al.Angular velocity integration in a fly heading circuit.Elife6, e23496 (2017)

2017
[11]

D., Zandvakili, A., Machens, C

Semedo, J. D., Zandvakili, A., Machens, C. K., Yu, B. M. & Kohn, A. Cortical areas interact through a communication subspace.Neuron102, 249–259 (2019)

2019
[12]

Lin, A.et al.Network statistics of the whole-brain connectome of drosophila.Nature634, 153–165 (2024). 29

2024
[13]

R., Chen, B

Varshney, L. R., Chen, B. L., Paniagua, E., Hall, D. H. & Chklovskii, D. B. Structural proper- ties of the caenorhabditis elegans neuronal network.PLoS computational biology7, e1001066 (2011)

2011
[14]

C.et al.The wu-minn human connectome project: an overview.Neuroimage 80, 62–79 (2013)

Van Essen, D. C.et al.The wu-minn human connectome project: an overview.Neuroimage 80, 62–79 (2013)

2013
[15]

& Sporns, O

Bullmore, E. & Sporns, O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems.Nature reviews neuroscience10, 186–198 (2009)

2009
[16]

D.et al.Functional network organization of the human brain.Neuron72, 665–678 (2011)

Power, J. D.et al.Functional network organization of the human brain.Neuron72, 665–678 (2011)

2011
[17]

F., Hawellek, D

Hipp, J. F., Hawellek, D. J., Corbetta, M., Siegel, M. & Engel, A. K. Large-scale cortical correlation structure of spontaneous oscillatory activity.Nature neuroscience15, 884–890 (2012)

2012
[18]

J., Segev, R

Schneidman, E., Berry, M. J., Segev, R. & Bialek, W. Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population.Nature440, 1007–1012 (2006)

2006
[19]

& Harris, K

Stringer, C., Pachitariu, M., Steinmetz, N., Carandini, M. & Harris, K. D. High-dimensional geometry of population responses in visual cortex.Nature571, 361–365 (2019)

2019
[20]

& Ostojic, S

Jazayeri, M. & Ostojic, S. Interpreting neural computations by examining intrinsic and embed- ding dimensionality of neural activity.Current opinion in neurobiology70, 113–120 (2021)

2021
[21]

& Boonstra, T

Mehrkanoon, S., Breakspear, M. & Boonstra, T. W. Low-dimensional dynamics of resting- state cortical activity.Brain topography27, 338–352 (2014)

2014
[22]

A., Perich, M

Gallego, J. A., Perich, M. G., Miller, L. E. & Solla, S. A. Neural manifolds for the control of movement.Neuron94, 978–984 (2017)

2017
[23]

Cunningham, J. P. & Yu, B. M. Dimensionality reduction for large-scale neural recordings. Nature neuroscience17, 1500–1509 (2014). 30

2014
[24]

Bettinardi, R. G.et al.How structure sculpts function: unveiling the contribution of anatomical connectivity to the brain’s spontaneous correlation structure.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science27(2017)

2017
[25]

M.et al.Structurally-constrained relationships between cognitive states in the human brain.PLoS computational biology10, e1003591 (2014)

Hermundstad, A. M.et al.Structurally-constrained relationships between cognitive states in the human brain.PLoS computational biology10, e1003591 (2014)

2014
[26]

Wang, Z., Dai, Z., Gong, G., Zhou, C. & He, Y . Understanding structural-functional relation- ships in the human brain: a large-scale network perspective.The Neuroscientist21, 290–305 (2015)

2015
[27]

J., Thivierge, J.-P

Honey, C. J., Thivierge, J.-P. & Sporns, O. Can structure predict function in the human brain? Neuroimage52, 766–776 (2010)

2010
[28]

Fotiadis, P.et al.Structure–function coupling in macroscale human brain networks.Nature Reviews Neuroscience25, 688–704 (2024)

2024
[29]

Bechhoefer, J.Control theory for physicists(Cambridge University Press, 2021)

2021
[30]

Kim, J. Z. & Bassett, D. S. Linear dynamics and control of brain networks. InNeural engi- neering, 497–518 (Springer, 2020)

2020
[31]

Gu, S.et al.Controllability of structural brain networks.Nature communications6, 8414 (2015)

2015
[32]

Parkes, L.et al.A network control theory pipeline for studying the dynamics of the structural connectome.Nature Protocols19, 3721–3749 (2024)

2024
[33]

Z.et al.Role of graph architecture in controlling dynamical networks with applications to neural systems.Nature physics14, 91–98 (2018)

Kim, J. Z.et al.Role of graph architecture in controlling dynamical networks with applications to neural systems.Nature physics14, 91–98 (2018)

2018
[34]

Seelig, J. D. & Jayaraman, V . Neural dynamics for landmark orientation and angular path integration.Nature521, 186–191 (2015). 31

2015
[35]

K., Jayaraman, V ., Romani, S

Noorman, M., Hulse, B. K., Jayaraman, V ., Romani, S. & Hermundstad, A. M. Maintain- ing and updating accurate internal representations of continuous variables with a handful of neurons.Nature neuroscience27, 2207–2217 (2024)

2024
[36]

B.et al.The neuroanatomical ultrastructure and function of a biological ring attractor.Neuron108, 145–163 (2020)

Turner-Evans, D. B.et al.The neuroanatomical ultrastructure and function of a biological ring attractor.Neuron108, 145–163 (2020)

2020
[37]

Green, J.et al.A neural circuit architecture for angular integration in drosophila.Nature546, 101–106 (2017)

2017
[38]

J.et al.Neurodevelopment of the association cortices: Patterns, mechanisms, and implications for psychopathology.Neuron109, 2820–2846 (2021)

Sydnor, V . J.et al.Neurodevelopment of the association cortices: Patterns, mechanisms, and implications for psychopathology.Neuron109, 2820–2846 (2021)

2021
[39]

S.et al.Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 12574–12579 (2016)

Margulies, D. S.et al.Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 12574–12579 (2016)

2016
[40]

S., Logothetis, N

Noei, S., Zouridis, I. S., Logothetis, N. K., Panzeri, S. & Totah, N. K. Distinct ensembles in the noradrenergic locus coeruleus are associated with diverse cortical states.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2116507119 (2022)

2022
[41]

Breton-Provencher, V ., Drummond, G. T. & Sur, M. Locus coeruleus norepinephrine in learned behavior: anatomical modularity and spatiotemporal integration in targets.Frontiers in Neural Circuits15, 638007 (2021)

2021
[42]

Ito, H. T. & Schuman, E. M. Frequency-dependent gating of synaptic transmission and plas- ticity by dopamine.Frontiers in neural circuits1, 26 (2007)

2007
[43]

G.et al.A hardwired neural circuit for temporal difference learning.bioRxiv (2025)

Campbell, M. G.et al.A hardwired neural circuit for temporal difference learning.bioRxiv (2025)

2025
[44]

L.et al.Frequency of gamma oscillations routes flow of information in the hip- pocampus.Nature462, 353–357 (2009)

Colgin, L. L.et al.Frequency of gamma oscillations routes flow of information in the hip- pocampus.Nature462, 353–357 (2009). 32

2009
[45]

functionally labeled lines

Khamechian, M. B., Kozyrev, V ., Treue, S., Esghaei, M. & Daliri, M. R. Routing information flow by separate neural synchrony frequencies allows for “functionally labeled lines” in higher primate cortex.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 12506–12515 (2019)

2019
[46]

& Fiete, I

Burak, Y . & Fiete, I. R. Accurate path integration in continuous attractor network models of grid cells.PLoS computational biology5, e1000291 (2009)

2009
[47]

Finkelstein, A.et al.Three-dimensional head-direction coding in the bat brain.Nature517, 159–164 (2015)

2015
[48]

K.et al.A connectome of the drosophila central complex reveals network mo- tifs suitable for flexible navigation and context-dependent action selection.Elife10, e66039 (2021)

Hulse, B. K.et al.A connectome of the drosophila central complex reveals network mo- tifs suitable for flexible navigation and context-dependent action selection.Elife10, e66039 (2021)

2021
[49]

S., Rouault, H., Druckmann, S

Kim, S. S., Rouault, H., Druckmann, S. & Jayaraman, V . Ring attractor dynamics in the drosophila central brain.Science356, 849–853 (2017)

2017
[50]

& Fiete, I

Khona, M. & Fiete, I. R. Attractor and integrator networks in the brain.Nature Reviews Neuroscience23, 744–766 (2022)

2022
[51]

A., Dumoulin, S

Wandell, B. A., Dumoulin, S. O. & Brewer, A. A. Visual field maps in human cortex.Neuron 56, 366–383 (2007)

2007
[52]

L., Andrews-Hanna, J

Buckner, R. L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R. & Schacter, D. L. The brain’s default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease.Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences1124, 1–38 (2008)

2008
[53]

T.et al.The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity.Journal of neurophysiology(2011)

Yeo, B. T.et al.The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity.Journal of neurophysiology(2011)

2011
[54]

From sensation to cognition.Brain: a journal of neurology121, 1013–1052 (1998)

Mesulam, M.-M. From sensation to cognition.Brain: a journal of neurology121, 1013–1052 (1998)

1998
[55]

V ´azquez-Rodr´ıguez, B.et al.Gradients of structure–function tethering across neocortex.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 21219–21227 (2019). 33

2019
[56]

Salvador, R.et al.Neurophysiological architecture of functional magnetic resonance images of human brain.Cerebral cortex15, 1332–1342 (2005)

2005
[57]

E.et al.Regional variation in interhemispheric coordination of intrinsic hemody- namic fluctuations.Journal of Neuroscience28, 13754–13764 (2008)

Stark, D. E.et al.Regional variation in interhemispheric coordination of intrinsic hemody- namic fluctuations.Journal of Neuroscience28, 13754–13764 (2008)

2008
[58]

Toro, R., Fox, P. T. & Paus, T. Functional coactivation map of the human brain.Cerebral cortex18, 2553–2559 (2008)

2008
[59]

R., Joglekar, M

Yang, G. R., Joglekar, M. R., Song, H. F., Newsome, W. T. & Wang, X.-J. Task representations in neural networks trained to perform many cognitive tasks.Nature neuroscience22, 297–306 (2019)

2019
[60]

E., Doiron, B., Leifer, A

Urai, A. E., Doiron, B., Leifer, A. M. & Churchland, A. K. Large-scale neural recordings call for new insights to link brain and behavior.Nature neuroscience25, 11–19 (2022)

2022
[61]

Demas, J.et al.High-speed, cortex-wide volumetric recording of neuroactivity at cellular resolution using light beads microscopy.Nature methods18, 1103–1111 (2021)

2021
[62]

Neuromodulation of neuronal circuits: back to the future.Neuron76, 1–11 (2012)

Marder, E. Neuromodulation of neuronal circuits: back to the future.Neuron76, 1–11 (2012)

2012
[63]

A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence.Trends in cognitive sciences9, 474–480 (2005)

Fries, P. A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence.Trends in cognitive sciences9, 474–480 (2005)

2005
[64]

Reynolds, J. H. & Chelazzi, L. Attentional modulation of visual processing.Annu. Rev. Neurosci.27, 611–647 (2004)

2004
[65]

Fotiadis, P.et al.Biological substrates of structure-function coupling in brain networks.Neu- roscience & Biobehavioral Reviews106581 (2026)

2026
[66]

science316, 1609–1612 (2007)

Womelsdorf, T.et al.Modulation of neuronal interactions through neuronal synchronization. science316, 1609–1612 (2007)

2007
[67]

Stern, M., Guzman, M., Martins, F., Liu, A. J. & Balasubramanian, V . Physical networks become what they learn.Physical Review Letters134, 147402 (2025). 34

2025
[68]

& Murugan, A

Stern, M. & Murugan, A. Learning without neurons in physical systems.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 417–441 (2023)

2023
[69]

J.et al.Characterizing control between interacting subsystems with deep jacobian estimation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38, 51361–51406 (2026)

Eisen, A. J.et al.Characterizing control between interacting subsystems with deep jacobian estimation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38, 51361–51406 (2026)

2026
[70]

F.et al.The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the human connectome project

Glasser, M. F.et al.The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the human connectome project. Neuroimage80, 105–124 (2013)

2013
[71]

Tournier, J.-D.et al.Mrtrix3: A fast, flexible and open software framework for medical image processing and visualisation.Neuroimage202, 116137 (2019)

2019
[72]

E., Tournier, J.-D., Calamante, F

Smith, R. E., Tournier, J.-D., Calamante, F. & Connelly, A. Sift2: Enabling dense quantitative assessment of brain white matter connectivity using streamlines tractography.Neuroimage 119, 338–351 (2015)

2015
[73]

D., Calamante, F., Connelly, A.et al.Improved probabilistic streamlines trac- tography by 2nd order integration over fibre orientation distributions

Tournier, J. D., Calamante, F., Connelly, A.et al.Improved probabilistic streamlines trac- tography by 2nd order integration over fibre orientation distributions. InProceedings of the international society for magnetic resonance in medicine, vol. 1670 (Stockholm, 2010)

2010
[74]

Fotiadis, P.et al.Myelination and excitation-inhibition balance synergistically shape structure- function coupling across the human cortex.Nature Communications14, 6115 (2023)

2023
[75]

Schaefer, A.et al.Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic func- tional connectivity mri.BioRxiv135632 (2017)

2017
[76]

Gu, S.et al.Task-structured modularity emerges in artificial networks and aligns with brain architecture (2025)

2025
[77]

Rhythms for cognition: communication through coherence.Neuron88, 220–235 (2015)

Fries, P. Rhythms for cognition: communication through coherence.Neuron88, 220–235 (2015). 35

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S.et al.Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 7641–7646 (2011)

Bassett, D. S.et al.Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 7641–7646 (2011)

2011

[2] [2]

Rugg, M. D. & Vilberg, K. L. Brain networks underlying episodic memory retrieval.Current opinion in neurobiology23, 255–260 (2013)

2013

[3] [3]

Bressler, S. L. & Menon, V . Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles.Trends in cognitive sciences14, 277–290 (2010)

2010

[4] [4]

Xie, X., Hahnloser, R. H. & Seung, H. S. Double-ring network model of the head-direction system.Physical Review E66, 041902 (2002)

2002

[5] [5]

& Friston, K

Park, H.-J. & Friston, K. Structural and functional brain networks: from connections to cog- nition.Science342, 1238411 (2013)

2013

[6] [6]

& Bassett, D

Kulkarni, S. & Bassett, D. S. Toward principles of brain network organization and function. Annual Review of Biophysics54(2025)

2025

[7] [7]

Bassett, D. S. & Sporns, O. Network neuroscience.Nature neuroscience20, 353–364 (2017)

2017

[8] [8]

D., Sussillo, D

Vyas, S., Golub, M. D., Sussillo, D. & Shenoy, K. V . Computation through neural population dynamics.Annual review of neuroscience43, 249–275 (2020)

2020