Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 112 references

A practical guide to methodological considerations in the controllability of structural brain networks

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Brain controllability metrics shift with modeling choices, and a new metric shows brain energy landscapes are more homogeneous than rewired networks.

desk verdict Useful sensitivity guide with a broken complexity-metric validation; fix the null-model statistics and it's publishable. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03514 v1 pith:CBG7IEHU submitted 2019-08-09 q-bio.NC q-bio.QM

Teresa M. Karrer , Jason Z. Kim , Jennifer Stiso , Ari E. Kahn , Fabio Pasqualetti , Ute Habel , Danielle S. Bassett This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCq-bio.QM
keywords networkcontroltheorystructuralbrainnetworkscontrollabilitymetricsenergylandscapecomplexityspatialadjacencyconnectivitydiffusionimagingmodelingchoicesmodal
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 argues that the numbers produced by network control theory on structural brain networks are not fixed properties of the brain but depend on modeling choices: time system, time horizon, normalization, and control set size. It tests four standard metrics (average controllability, modal controllability, minimum control energy, and optimal control energy) on diffusion-imaging connectomes from ten adults and shows that short time horizons and fast stabilization create distinct control regimes. It also proposes two extensions: a spatial adjacency connectivity matrix based on face-touching voxels, and a complexity metric for the energy landscape. The paper's strongest new finding is that brain networks have a significantly more homogeneous energy landscape than topological, spatial, or combined null models, implying that the brain requires similar control energy for diverse state transitions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the linear controlled system $\dot{x}(t) = Ax(t) + B_\kappa u_\kappa(t)$, with $A$ the weighted structural adjacency matrix (233 nodes, zero diagonal) and $B_\kappa$ selecting control nodes. From this come the controllability Gramian $W_{\kappa,T} = \int_0^T e^{At} B_\kappa B_\kappa^\top e^{A^\top t} dt$ and the four metrics: average controllability, modal controllability $\phi_i = \sum_{j=1}^{N} (1 - e^{\lambda_j(A)}) v_{ij}^2$, minimum control energy, and optimal control energy. The paper's new complexity metric $C$ measures the spread of the eigenvalue distribution of $W_{\kappa,T}^{-1}$, capturing the heterogeneity of minimum control energy across all possible state transitions. The spatial adjacency matrix counts face-touching voxels between parcels and is averaged with $A$ to form a combined connectivity matrix.

What would settle it

Recompute average controllability, minimum control energy, and the complexity metric on the same ten connectomes after replacing the linear noiseless model with a stochastic or nonlinear neural mass model, or after replacing $A$ with a functional or effective connectivity matrix. If the short-horizon and fast-stabilization control regimes and the brain's lower complexity relative to null models vanish or reverse, then the reported properties belong to the linear tractography model rather than to brain architecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that controllability statistics of structural brain networks should be interpreted relative to the modeling choices that produced them. Under the standard linear time-invariant model $\dot{x} = Ax + B_\kappa u_\kappa$, the paper shows that discrete versus continuous time, the time horizon $T$, the normalization parameter $c$, and the size and composition of the control set $B_\kappa$ each shift metric values enough to change regional rankings and even introduce qualitatively different control regimes. The authors therefore recommend verifying results in the alternative time system, checking multiple time horizons, scaling $c$ to the largest eigenvalue of $A$, and controlling sufficiently many regions. The paper further defines spatial adjacency connectivity as the count of face-touching voxels between parcels and energy landscape complexity as the interquartile range of the eigenvalues of the inverse controllability Gramian. It shows that the spatial adjacency measure is complementary to tractography-based connectivity, and that the brain's energy landscape complexity is lower than all three null models tested.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the linear, time-invariant, noise-free equation $\dot{x} = Ax + B_\kappa u_\kappa$, with $A$ taken from deterministic tractography streamline counts and diagonal zeroed, adequately captures the neural dynamics that controllability metrics describe; the paper itself states that linearity, time invariance, and noise-freedom are approximations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Studies comparing controllability results across datasets must report time system, time horizon, normalization parameter, and control set size, since each shifts the metrics enough to change regional rankings.
  • Control energy drops exponentially as control set size grows, so partial control sets produce energy estimates that are reliable only above roughly 28–30% of nodes and can follow qualitatively different state trajectories than full-brain control.
  • Short time horizons and fast stabilization form a distinct control regime, so results obtained at one time scale should not be extrapolated to another without rechecking the alternative.
  • The lower complexity of the brain's energy landscape relative to all three null models indicates that diverse state transitions require more similar control energy in brain networks than in rewired networks.
  • Spatial adjacency connectivity is complementary to tractography-based connectivity, suggesting that combining both measures may capture controllability information that either measure alone misses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the complexity metric proves reproducible, it could be tested as a state-independent marker in disorders where neural dynamics become rigid or stereotyped; this is not tested in the paper.
  • The trade-off between controlling fast and slow modes at the 50% threshold suggests a testable regional specialization: subcortical regions favor fast-mode control and frontoparietal regions favor slow-mode control in larger samples.
  • Because the energy landscape metric is built on the inverse Gramian with full-brain control, applying it to partial control sets will require regularization or a different estimator; the paper notes the inverse Gramian is ill-conditioned for small control sets.
  • One could test whether the alternative control regimes induced by short horizons and fast stabilization correspond to stimulation protocols of different durations in intracranial recording data, linking the modeling regimes to observable neural responses.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a methodological primer for network control theory applied to structural brain networks. Using diffusion imaging data from ten healthy adults, the authors systematically vary four modeling choices—time system, time horizon, normalization, and control set size—and quantify how these choices affect average controllability, modal controllability, minimum control energy, and optimal control energy. They also propose two extensions: a spatial-adjacency structural connectivity measure S, and a new complexity metric C defined as the interquartile range of eigenvalues of the inverted controllability Gramian. The paper reports that modeling choices can induce qualitatively different control regimes, that S provides information complementary to tractography-based connectivity, and that brain networks have significantly lower energy-landscape complexity than several null models. It closes with concrete modeling recommendations.

Significance. If the sensitivity results hold, the paper fills a genuine need in an active field: it provides an accessible, systematic account of how seemingly arbitrary choices affect commonly used controllability metrics, and it gives actionable recommendations. The treatment of the linearity and noise assumptions is unusually transparent, and the null-model framework for the new complexity metric is a principled way to validate a derived quantity. The regional-level correlations are mostly strong and based on a large number of regions, which supports the main sensitivity claims. The paper is less convincing on the individual level, where n = 10 yields wide confidence intervals and many non-significant correlations. The validation of the complexity metric, which is highlighted in the abstract and discussion, currently rests on internally inconsistent statistics and weak complementarity evidence, so the central claims about C are not yet fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.8, Eq. (9); §3.9; Fig. 8] The headline null-model validation of the complexity metric C is internally inconsistent. The text reports Wilcoxon W = 65, 0, 2498 with p = 8×10−8, 5×10−8, and 6×10−3 for the topological, spatial, and combined null models. With n = 10 participants, a Wilcoxon signed-rank statistic cannot exceed 55, so W = 65 and W = 2498 are impossible under that test; moreover, a signed-rank W = 0 would have exact two-sided p ≈ 0.002, not 5×10−8. If a two-sample rank-sum test against the null instantiations is intended instead, the test is not described, and the sample sizes are ambiguous because §3.9 states 1000 random instantiations per model while the Fig. 8 caption states 100. No per-subject C values or code are provided to resolve the discrepancy. Since the claimed lower complexity of brain energy landscapes is the only direct validation of C and is emphasized in the abstract and discussion, this issue must be fixed by re-analyzing the data and reporting the exact test, sample sizes, and per-subject values before the central claims about C can be assessed.
  2. [§4.8] The complementarity of C with existing controllability metrics is asserted but rests almost entirely on n = 10 correlations. The reported Pearson correlations are r = -0.15 (p = 0.68) with average controllability, r = -0.67 (p = 0.04) with modal controllability, and r = -0.40 (p = 0.26) with minimum control energy. Two of these are not statistically significant, and the one nominally significant result would not survive correction for multiple comparisons. The statement that the complexity metric is 'complementary' to existing controllability metrics therefore goes beyond the evidence reported. Please provide confidence intervals and clearly framed effect-size statements, or temper the complementarity claim to reflect the preliminary nature of this evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption vs. §3.9] The number of null-model instantiations is inconsistent: §3.9 says 1000 per model, while the Fig. 8 caption says 100. Please reconcile these numbers and state the exact test used.
  2. [References] Reference [10] contains malformed BibTeX text in the author field and should be corrected.
  3. [§4.5] The reported mean control energies (e.g., meanmin = 43.8 and meanopt = 56.0) are given without units or a clear statement of the normalization of the state vectors; please define these units explicitly.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from a data and code availability statement, especially for the new complexity metric whose validation currently cannot be reproduced from the manuscript alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the new complexity metric and spatial-adjacency measure are closed-form functions of the Gramian and anatomy, and the sensitivity analyses vary modeling choices rather than fitting them to outcomes; self-citations are present but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central contributions are an empirical sensitivity analysis and two proposed extensions. Average and modal controllability, minimum/optimal control energy, and the Gramian are standard quantities (Eqs. 2, 4, 7, 8). The new complexity metric C_{kappa,T} (Eq. 9) is defined directly as the IQR of the eigenvalues of the inverted controllability Gramian; no parameter is fitted to the headline outcome. The claim that C is lower in brain networks than in topological, spatial, and combined null models is an empirical comparison to nulls that preserve graph features but do not encode C. Likewise, the spatial adjacency network S is defined geometrically from face-touching voxels, and the 'complementary information' claim comes from correlating controllability metrics computed from A and S; no quantity is renamed and then recovered. The modeling-choice analyses (time system, horizon, normalization, control-set size) vary one parameter while holding others fixed and report correlations; these are descriptive, not fitted predictions. The paper does cite substantial prior work by its own authors (e.g., refs. 11, 30, 31, 35, 36) for metric definitions and earlier controllability results, but those citations are not used to force the present conclusions: the null-model comparison and sensitivity results stand on the paper's own computations from the 10-subject dataset. The paper's acknowledged limitations (Section 5, 'Methodological considerations': linearity, time-invariance, noise, restricted state transitions) bear on model validity and generalizability, not on circularity. A separate internal-consistency concern in Section 4.8 (W=65 with n=10 is impossible for a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the text states 1000 null instantiations while the Figure 8 caption says 100) is a reproducibility/statistical-reporting problem, not a circularity one; the absence of code or per-subject C values prevents independent audit of that statistic, but auditability is not circular inference.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All central results are computed from the linear control model in Eq. 2, so the modeling choices and domain assumptions enumerated above are load-bearing. The paper deliberately varies some parameters to show sensitivity, but c, T, rho, dt, and the fast/slow threshold remain hand-chosen inputs rather than quantities derived from data. No new physical entities are postulated; the spatial adjacency matrix S is computed directly from T1 images and the complexity metric C is a summary statistic of the controllability Gramian.

free parameters (5)
  • normalization parameter c = default c=1; sensitivity range 0.1 to 10^6; recommended c=0.01*|lambda_max|
    Introduced in Eq. 3 as Anorm = A/|lambda(A)max| + c - I to stabilize the system; Section 4.3 shows that the value of c changes average controllability, modal controllability, and minimum control energy and separates two control regimes, so the reported results depend on this hand-chosen parameter.
  • time horizon T = T=3 for control energies (approximated by 1000 steps), infinite for average controllability
    Section 2.3 and 3.5 specify T by hand; Section 4.2 shows metrics vary non-monotonically with T and that short horizons form a different control regime.
  • relative energy weight rho = rho=1
    Section 2.3 sets rho=1 as an equal weighting of trajectory distance and input energy in the cost function J; this choice affects optimal control energy values.
  • time step dt = dt=0.001
    Section 2.3 states dt should be small and recommends 0.001; this discretization affects numerical estimates of control energy.
  • fast/slow mode threshold = 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% fastest and slowest modes
    Section 3.8 and 4.7 define transient and persistent modal controllability by a hand-chosen threshold; the correlation between the two metrics flips sign as the threshold changes (r0.1=0.82 to r0.5=-0.99).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Neural activity dynamics are adequately approximated by the linear time-invariant model x_dot = Ax + Bu (Eqs. 1-2).
    Invoked throughout Sections 2.1, 3.5, and all numerical demonstrations; the authors acknowledge in Section 2.1 that linearity, time invariance, and freedom from noise are simplifications.
  • domain assumption The structural connectivity matrix A, with edge weights as tractography streamline counts and zero diagonal, is a valid linear operator for brain state dynamics.
    Section 2.2 and 3.3 construct A from deterministic tractography; tractography limitations are acknowledged in Section 5 but the entire analysis depends on this operationalization.
  • domain assumption The controllability Gramian W_kappa,T exists and is invertible for the control sets used, including single-node control for average and modal controllability and full-brain control for the complexity metric.
    Section 2.4 and 3.9 rely on W and its inverse; Section 2.4 notes the smallest eigenvalue can be extremely small and numerically difficult, and Section 3.9 assumes full-brain control because the inverse is ill-conditioned for small control sets.
  • domain assumption The cost function J in Eq. 4 with equal weighting rho=1 is an appropriate normative model for brain state transitions.
    Section 2.3 motivates J by biological plausibility but provides no empirical evidence that brains minimize this particular cost; the optimal control energy results depend on it.
  • domain assumption Null models preserving strength distribution, spatial embedding, or both are appropriate benchmarks for the complexity of the energy landscape.
    Section 3.9 and 4.8 compare C to three null models; the conclusion that brain networks are unusually homogeneous depends on the null models being the correct comparison class.
  • standard math Modal controllability is only formalized for symmetric adjacency matrices, and brain networks are treated as undirected symmetric graphs.
    Section 2.6 states modal controllability is exclusively formalized for symmetric matrices; the analysis uses undirected structural networks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A practical guide to methodological considerations in the controllability of structural brain networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CBG7IEHU

@misc{pith2026190803514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A practical guide to methodological considerations in the controllability of structural brain networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CBG7IEHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03514}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting how the brain can be driven to specific states by means of internal or external control requires a fundamental understanding of the relationship between neural connectivity and activity. Network control theory is a powerful tool from the physical and engineering sciences that can provide insights regarding that relationship; it formalizes the study of how the dynamics of a complex system can arise from its underlying structure of interconnected units. Given the recent use of network control theory in neuroscience, it is now timely to offer a practical guide to methodological considerations in the controllability of structural brain networks. Here we provide a systematic overview of the framework, examine the impact of modeling choices on frequently studied control metrics, and suggest potentially useful theoretical extensions. We ground our discussions, numerical demonstrations, and theoretical advances in a dataset of high-resolution diffusion imaging with 730 diffusion directions acquired over approximately 1 hour of scanning from ten healthy young adults. Following a didactic introduction of the theory, we probe how a selection of modeling choices affects four common statistics: average controllability, modal controllability, minimum control energy, and optimal control energy. Next, we extend the current state of the art in two ways: first, by developing an alternative measure of structural connectivity that accounts for radial propagation of activity through abutting tissue, and second, by defining a complementary metric quantifying the complexity of the energy landscape of a system. We close with specific modeling recommendations and a discussion of methodological constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematics of network control theory and relevant concepts. (A) Structural brain network construction. Brain atlas and diffusion imaging data define the nodes and edges of the structural connectivity matrix A. (B) Natural dynamics of the brain. The temporal evolution of brain states, such as the magnitude of neurophysiological activity across brain regions, is modeled as a linear function of brain structure. The are… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Consistency of metrics across time. (A) Consistency of average controllability and minimum control energy across time systems. Pearson correlation coefficient between a given metric estimated for discrete- versus continuous-time systems across a range of time horizons T. (Left) Average controllability; (Right) minimum control energy. (B) Consistency of average controllability and minimum control energy in a continuo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Different control regimes depending on normalization. Consistency of (Left) average controllability, (Middle) modal controllability, and (Right) minimum control energy for different choices of the normalization parameter c. (A) Heat maps depict correlation matrices of different normalization parameters. Each heat map entry corresponds to the Pearson correlation between a metric calculated using one normalization par… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Minimum control energy in full and partial control sets. Minimum control energy for state transitions from the default mode system to six target cognitive systems (colored lines and triangles). (Top) Results from simulations using a whole-brain control set including al…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relation between controllability metrics and control energies. (A) The correlation matrix of individual average controllability, modal controllability, minimum control energy, and optimal control energy, summarized across brain regions. Pearson correlation coefficients…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Structural connectivity measures. (A) Average controllability, (B) modal controllability, and (C) minimum control energy for different measures of structural connectivity. The network encoded in A is based on streamline counts between two brain regions from diffusion i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of threshold on persistent and transient modal controllability. Regional controllability of fast and slow modes for two exemplary thresholds. (Top) Persistent and transient modal controllability defined as a brain region’s ability to control the 10% slowest and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Complexity of the energy landscape of the human brain. Heterogeneity of the minimum control energy landscape of individual participants (dark blue diamonds) as compared to three null models preserving different characteris￾tics of brain networks. The complexity of the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Emerging concepts for the dynamical organization of resting-state activity in the brain

    G Deco, V K Jirsa, and A R McIntosh. Emerging concepts for the dynamical organization of resting-state activity in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(1):43, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Great expectations: using whole-brain computational connectomics for understanding neuropsychiatric disorders

    G Deco and M L Kringelbach. Great expectations: using whole-brain computational connectomics for understanding neuropsychiatric disorders. Neuron, 84(5):892–905, 2014

    2014

  3. [3]

    Learning, memory, and the role of neural network architecture

    A M Hermundstad, K S Brown, D S Bassett, and J M Carlson. Learning, memory, and the role of neural network architecture. PLoS computational biology, 7(6):e1002063, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Structural foundations of resting-state and task-based functional connectivity in the human brain

    A M Hermundstad, D S Bassett, K S Brown, E M Aminoff, D Clewett, S Freeman, A Frithsen, A Johnson, C M Tipper, M B Miller, et al. Structural foundations of resting-state and task-based functional connectivity in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110 (15):6169–6174, 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    Structurally-constrained relationships between cognitive states in the human brain

    A M Hermundstad, K S Brown, D S Bassett, E M Aminoff, A Frithsen, A Johnson, C M Tipper, M B Miller, S T Grafton, and J M Carlson. Structurally-constrained relationships between cognitive states in the human brain. PLoS computational biology, 10(5):e1003591, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Recurrent network models of sequence generation and memory

    K Rajan, C D Harvey, and D W Tank. Recurrent network models of sequence generation and memory. Neuron, 90(1):128–142, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Distributed synchrony in a hebbian cell assembly of spiking neurons

    N Levy, D Horn, I Meilijson, and E Ruppin. Distributed synchrony in a hebbian cell assembly of spiking neurons. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 11, 1999

    1999

  8. [8]

    Spike-time-dependent plasticity and het- erosynaptic competition organize networks to produce long scale-free sequences of neural activity

    I R Fiete, W Senn, C ZH Wang, and R HR Hahnloser. Spike-time-dependent plasticity and het- erosynaptic competition organize networks to produce long scale-free sequences of neural activity. Neuron, 65(4):563–576, 2010

    2010

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Linear systems, volume 156

    T Kailath. Linear systems, volume 156. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980

    1980

  2. [10]

    Controllability of complex networks

    Y-Y Liu, J-J Slotine, and journal=nature volume=473 number=7346 pages=167 year=2011 pub- lisher=Nature Publishing Group Barab´ asi, A-L. Controllability of complex networks

    2011

  3. [11]

    Controllability metrics, limitations and algorithms for complex networks

    F Pasqualetti, S Zampieri, and F Bullo. Controllability metrics, limitations and algorithms for complex networks. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , 1(1):40–52, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems

    E Bullmore and O Sporns. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature reviews neuroscience, 10(3):186, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    On the nature and use of models in network neuroscience

    D S Bassett, P Zurn, and J I Gold. On the nature and use of models in network neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci, 19(9):566–578, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    A dynamical systems view of motor preparation: implications for neural prosthetic system design

    K V Shenoy, M T Kaufman, M Sahani, and M M Churchland. A dynamical systems view of motor preparation: implications for neural prosthetic system design. In Progress in brain research, volume 192, pages 33–58. Elsevier, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Characterization of state transitions in spatially distributed, chaotic, nonlinear, dynamical systems in cerebral cortex

    W J Freeman. Characterization of state transitions in spatially distributed, chaotic, nonlinear, dynamical systems in cerebral cortex. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 29(3):294– 306, 1994. 26

    1994

  8. [16]

    Controllability of linear dynamical systems, contributions to differential equations 1 (1963), 189–213

    R E Kalman, Y-C Ho, and K S Narendra. Controllability of linear dynamical systems, contributions to differential equations 1 (1963), 189–213. MR, 155070(27):5012

    1963

  9. [17]

    Stimulation-based control of dynamic brain networks

    S F Muldoon, F Pasqualetti, S Gu, M Cieslak, S T Grafton, J M Vettel, and D S Bassett. Stimulation-based control of dynamic brain networks. PLoS Comput Biol , 12(9):e1005076, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    White matter network architecture guides direct electrical stimulation through optimal state transitions

    J Stiso, A N Khambhati, T Menara, A E Kahn, J M Stein, S R Das, R Gorniak, J Tracy, B Litt, K A Davis, et al. White matter network architecture guides direct electrical stimulation through optimal state transitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01260 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Medial temporal lobe functional connectivity predicts stimulation-induced theta power

    E A Solomon, J E Kragel, R Gross, B Lega, M R Sperling, G Worrell, S A Sheth, K A Zaghloul, B C Jobst, J M Stein, S Das, R Gorniak, C S Inman, S Seger, D S Rizzuto, and M J Kahana. Medial temporal lobe functional connectivity predicts stimulation-induced theta power. Nat Commu...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Network controllability in the inferior frontal gyrus relates to controlled language variability and susceptibility to tms

    J D Medaglia, D Y Harvey, N White, A Kelkar, J Zimmerman, D S Bassett, and R H Hamilton. Network controllability in the inferior frontal gyrus relates to controlled language variability and susceptibility to tms. Journal of Neuroscience, pages 0092–17, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Functional control of electrophysiological network architecture using direct neurostimulation in humans

    A N Khambhati, A E Kahn, J Costantini, Y Ezzyat, E A Solomon, R E Gross, B C Jobst, S A Sheth, K A Zaghloul, G Worrell, S Seger, B C Lega, S Weiss, M R Sperling, R Gorniak, S R Das, J M Stein, D S Rizzuto, M J Kahana, T H Lucas, K A Davis, J I Tracy, and D S Bassett. Functiona...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Optimization of energy state transition trajectory supports the development of executive function during youth

    Z Cui, J Stiso, G L Baum, J Z Kim, D R Roalf, R F Betzel, Shi Gu, Z Lu, C H Xia, R Ciric, et al. Optimization of energy state transition trajectory supports the development of executive function during youth. bioRxiv, page 424929, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Locally stable brain states predict suppression of epileptic activity by enhanced cognitive effort

    S F Muldoon, J Costantini, W R S Webber, R Lesser, and D S Bassett. Locally stable brain states predict suppression of epileptic activity by enhanced cognitive effort. Neuroimage Clin, 18:599–607, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Sex differences in network controllability as a predictor of executive function in youth

    E J Cornblath, E Tang, G L Baum, T M Moore, A Adebimpe, D R Roalf, R C Gur, R E Gur, F Pasqualetti, T D Satterthwaite, et al. Sex differences in network controllability as a predictor of executive function in youth. NeuroImage, 188:122–134, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Motor, cognitive, and affective areas of the cerebral cortex influence the adrenal medulla

    R P Dum, D J Levinthal, and P L Strick. Motor, cognitive, and affective areas of the cerebral cortex influence the adrenal medulla. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 113(35):9922–9927, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Feeding the brain and nurturing the mind: Linking nutrition and the gut microbiota to brain development

    M S Goyal, S Venkatesh, J Milbrandt, J I Gordon, and M E Raichle. Feeding the brain and nurturing the mind: Linking nutrition and the gut microbiota to brain development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 112(46):14105–14112, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Network control principles predict neuron function in the Caenorhabditis elegans connectome

    G Yan, P E Vrtes, E K Towlson, Y L Chew, D S Walker, W R Schafer, and A L Barabsi. Network control principles predict neuron function in the Caenorhabditis elegans connectome. Nature, 550 (7677):519–523, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Caenorhab- ditis elegans and the network control frameworkfaqs.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1758):20170372, 2018

    E K Towlson, P E V´ ertes, G Yan, Y L Chew, D S Walker, W R Schafer, and A Barab´ asi. Caenorhab- ditis elegans and the network control frameworkfaqs.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1758):20170372, 2018. 27

    2018

  21. [29]

    Autaptic connections shift network excitability and bursting

    L Wiles, S Gu, F Pasqualetti, B Parvesse, D Gabrieli, D S Bassett, and D F Meaney. Autaptic connections shift network excitability and bursting. Sci Rep, 7:44006, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Role of graph architecture in controlling dynamical networks with applications to neural systems

    J Z Kim, J M Soffer, A E Kahn, J M Vettel, F Pasqualetti, and D S Bassett. Role of graph architecture in controlling dynamical networks with applications to neural systems. Nature physics, 14(1):91, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Controllability of structural brain networks.Nature communications, 6:8414, 2015

    S Gu, F Pasqualetti, M Cieslak, Q K Telesford, B Y Alfred, A E Kahn, J D Medaglia, J M Vettel, M B Miller, S T Grafton, et al. Controllability of structural brain networks.Nature communications, 6:8414, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Human cognition involves the dynamic integration of neural activity and neuromodula- tory systems

    J M Shine, M Breakspear, P T Bell, K A Ehgoetz Martens, R Shine, O Koyejo, O Sporns, and R A Poldrack. Human cognition involves the dynamic integration of neural activity and neuromodula- tory systems. Nat Neurosci, 22(2):289–296, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Fronto-limbic dysconnectivity leads to impaired brain network controllability in young people with bipolar disorder and those at high genetic risk

    J Jeganathan, A Perry, D S Bassett, G Roberts, P B Mitchell, and M Breakspear. Fronto-limbic dysconnectivity leads to impaired brain network controllability in young people with bipolar disorder and those at high genetic risk. Neuroimage Clin, 19:71–81, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Temporal lobe epilepsy: Hippocampal pathology modulates connectome topology and controllability

    B C Bernhardt, F Fadaie, M Liu, B Caldairou, S Gu, E Jefferies, J Smallwood, D S Bassett, A Bernasconi, and N Bernasconi. Temporal lobe epilepsy: Hippocampal pathology modulates connectome topology and controllability. Neurology, 92(19):e2209–e2220, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Optimal trajectories of brain state transitions

    S Gu, R F Betzel, M G Mattar, M Cieslak, P R Delio, S T Grafton, F Pasqualetti, and D S Bassett. Optimal trajectories of brain state transitions. Neuroimage, 148:305–317, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Optimally controlling the human connectome: the role of network topology

    R F Betzel, S Gu, J D Medaglia, F Pasqualetti, and D S Bassett. Optimally controlling the human connectome: the role of network topology. Scientific reports, 6:30770, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Human brain networks in health and disease

    D S Bassett and E T Bullmore. Human brain networks in health and disease. Current opinion in neurology, 22(4):340, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    Cognitive network neuroscience

    J D Medaglia, M-E Lynall, and D S Bassett. Cognitive network neuroscience. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 27(8):1471–1491, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Comparative connectomics

    M P Van den Heuvel, E T Bullmore, and O Sporns. Comparative connectomics. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(5):345–361, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    From maps to multi-dimensional network mechanisms of mental disorders

    U Braun, A Schaefer, R F Betzel, H Tost, A Meyer-Lindenberg, and D S Bassett. From maps to multi-dimensional network mechanisms of mental disorders. Neuron, 97(1):14–31, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Developmental increases in white matter network controllability support a growing diversity of brain dynamics

    E Tang, C Giusti, G L Baum, S Gu, E Pollock, A E Kahn, D R Roalf, T M Moore, K Ruparel, R C Gur, et al. Developmental increases in white matter network controllability support a growing diversity of brain dynamics. Nature Communications, 8(1):1252, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Brain state stability during working memory is explained by network control theory, modulated by dopamine d1/d2 receptor function, and diminished in schizophrenia

    U Braun, A Harneit, G Pergola, T Menara, A Schaefer, R F Betzel, Z Zang, J I Schweiger, K Schwarz, J Chen, G Blasi, A Bertolino, D Durstewitz, F Pasqualetti, E Schwarz, A Meyer- Lindenberg, D S Bassett, and H Tost. Brain state stability during working memory is explained by ne...

    2019

  35. [43]

    Colloquium: Control of dynamics in brain networks

    E Tang and D S Bassett. Colloquium: Control of dynamics in brain networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(3):031003, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Linear dynamics & control of brain networks

    J Z Kim and D S Bassett. Linear dynamics & control of brain networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03309, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  37. [45]

    On how network architecture determines the dominant patterns of spontaneous neural activity

    R F Gal´ an. On how network architecture determines the dominant patterns of spontaneous neural activity. PloS one, 3(5):e2148, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    Predicting human resting-state functional connectivity from structural connec- tivity

    CJ Honey, O Sporns, Leila Cammoun, Xavier Gigandet, Jean-Philippe Thiran, Reto Meuli, and Patric Hagmann. Predicting human resting-state functional connectivity from structural connec- tivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106(6):2035–2040, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the adult human brain

    A May. Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the adult human brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(10):475–482, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    Modular segregation of structural brain networks supports the development of executive function in youth

    G L Baum, R Ciric, D R Roalf, R F Betzel, T M Moore, R T Shinohara, A E Kahn, S N Vandekar, P E Rupert, M Quarmley, P A Cook, M A Elliott, K Ruparel, R E Gur, R C Gur, D S Bassett, and T D Satterthwaite. Modular segregation of structural brain networks supports the development...

    2017

  41. [49]

    How do efficient coding strategies depend on origins of noise in neural circuits? PLoS Comput Biol , 12(10):e1005150, 2016

    B A Brinkman, A I Weber, F Rieke, and E Shea-Brown. How do efficient coding strategies depend on origins of noise in neural circuits? PLoS Comput Biol , 12(10):e1005150, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Adaptive coding for dynamic sensory inference

    W F Mlynarski and A M Hermundstad. Adaptive coding for dynamic sensory inference. Elife, e32055, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Slope-based stochastic resonance: how noise enables phasic neurons to encode slow signals

    Y Gai, B Doiron, and J Rinzel. Slope-based stochastic resonance: how noise enables phasic neurons to encode slow signals. PLoS Comput Biol , 6(6), 2010

    2010

  44. [52]

    Brain signal variability is parametrically modifiable

    D D Garrett, A R McIntosh, and C L Grady. Brain signal variability is parametrically modifiable. Cereb Cortex, 24(11):2931–2940, 2014

    2014

  45. [53]

    Networks, noise and models: reconceptualizing the brain as a complex, distributed system

    M Breakspear and A R McIntosh. Networks, noise and models: reconceptualizing the brain as a complex, distributed system. Neuroimage, 58(2):293–295, 2011

    2011

  46. [54]

    Mechanisms of zero-lag synchronization in cortical motifs

    L L Gollo, C Mirasso, O Sporns, and M Breakspear. Mechanisms of zero-lag synchronization in cortical motifs. PLoS Comput Biol , 10(4):e1003548, 2014

    2014

  47. [55]

    A computa- tional study of stimulus driven epileptic seizure abatement

    P N Taylor, Y Wang, M Goodfellow, J Dauwels, F Moeller, U Stephani, and G Baier. A computa- tional study of stimulus driven epileptic seizure abatement. PLoS One, 9(12):e114316, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    The theory of optimal processes

    V G Boltyanskii, R V Gamkrelidze, and L S Pontryagin. The theory of optimal processes. i. the maximum principle. Technical report, TRW SPACE TECHNOLOGY LABS LOS ANGELES CALIF, 1960

    1960

  49. [57]

    Linear systems theory

    J P Hespanha. Linear systems theory. Princeton university press, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Context-dependent architecture of brain state dynamics is explained by white matter connectivity and theories of network control

    E J Cornblath, A Ashourvan, J Z Kim, R F Betzel, R Ciric, G L Baum, X He, K Ruparel, T M Moore, R C Gur, et al. Context-dependent architecture of brain state dynamics is explained by white matter connectivity and theories of network control. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02849, 2018. 29

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Structural control energy of resting-state functional brain states reveals inefficient brain dynamics in psychosis vulnerability

    D Zller, C Sandini, M Schaer, S Eliez, D S Bassett, and D Van De Ville. Structural control energy of resting-state functional brain states reveals inefficient brain dynamics in psychosis vulnerability. bioRxiv, 703561, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Structural controllability of symmetric networks

    T Menara, D Bassett, and F Pasqualetti. Structural controllability of symmetric networks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    Optimal sensor and actuator location for descriptor systems using generalized gramians and balanced realizations

    B Marx, D Koenig, and Didier Georges. Optimal sensor and actuator location for descriptor systems using generalized gramians and balanced realizations. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference, volume 3, pages 2729–2734. IEEE, 2004

    2004

  54. [62]

    Optimal sensor and actuator location for unstable systems

    H R Shaker and M Tahavori. Optimal sensor and actuator location for unstable systems. Journal of Vibration and Control , 19(12):1915–1920, 2013

    1915

  55. [63]

    Measures of modal controllability and observability for first-and second-order linear systems

    AMA Hamdan and AH Nayfeh. Measures of modal controllability and observability for first-and second-order linear systems. Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics , 12(3):421–428, 1989

    1989

  56. [64]

    Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in python

    K Gorgolewski, C D Burns, C Madison, D Clark, Y O Halchenko, M L Waskom, and S S Ghosh. Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in python. Front Neuroinform, 5, 08 2011. ISSN 1662-5196

    2011

  57. [65]

    A reproducible evaluation of ants similarity metric performance in brain image registration

    B B Avants, N J Tustison, G Song, P A Cook, A Klein, and J C Gee. A reproducible evaluation of ants similarity metric performance in brain image registration. Neuroimage, 54(3):2033–2044, 2011

    2011

  58. [66]

    Generalized q-sampling imaging

    F-C Yeh, V J Wedeen, and W-Y I Tseng. Generalized q-sampling imaging. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 29(9):1626–1635, 2010

    2010

  59. [67]

    Deterministic diffusion fiber tracking improved by quantitative anisotropy

    F-C Yeh, T D Verstynen, Y Wang, J C Fern´ andez-Miranda, and W-Y I Tseng. Deterministic diffusion fiber tracking improved by quantitative anisotropy. PloS one, 8(11):e80713, 2013

    2013

  60. [68]

    Local termination pattern analysis: a tool for comparing white matter morphology

    M Cieslak and ST Grafton. Local termination pattern analysis: a tool for comparing white matter morphology. Brain imaging and behavior , 8(2):292–299, 2014

    2014

  61. [69]

    Conserved and variable architecture of human white matter connectivity

    D S Bassett, J A Brown, V Deshpande, J M Carlson, and S T Grafton. Conserved and variable architecture of human white matter connectivity. Neuroimage, 54(2):1262–1279, 2011

    2011

  62. [70]

    Mapping the human connectome at multiple scales with diffusion spectrum mri

    L Cammoun, X Gigandet, D Meskaldji, J P Thiran, O Sporns, K Q Do, P Maeder, R Meuli, and P Hagmann. Mapping the human connectome at multiple scales with diffusion spectrum mri. Journal of neuroscience methods , 203(2):386–397, 2012

    2012

  63. [71]

    The connectome mapper: an open-source processing pipeline to map connectomes with mri

    A Daducci, S Gerhard, A Griffa, A Lemkaddem, L Cammoun, X Gigandet, R Meuli, P Hagmann, and J-P Thiran. The connectome mapper: an open-source processing pipeline to map connectomes with mri. PloS one, 7(12):e48121, 2012

    2012

  64. [72]

    B. T. Yeo, F. M. Krienen, J. Sepulcre, M. R. Sabuncu, D. Lashkari, M. Hollinshead, J. L. Roffman, Smoller J. W., L. Zllei, J. R. Polimeni, B. Fischl, ... Liu, H., and R. L. Buckner. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Jo...

    2011

  65. [73]

    Benchmarking measures of network controllability on canonical graph models

    E Wu-Yan, R F Betzel, E Tang, S Gu, F Pasqualetti, and D S Bassett. Benchmarking measures of network controllability on canonical graph models. Journal of Nonlinear Science, pages 1–39, 2018

    2018

  66. [74]

    The control of brain network dynamics across diverse scales of space and time

    E Tang, G L Baum, D R Roalf, T D Satterthwaite, F Pasqualetti, and D S Bassett. The control of brain network dynamics across diverse scales of space and time. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07536 , 2019

    1901 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpreta- tions

    M Rubinov and O Sporns. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpreta- tions. Neuroimage, 52(3):1059–1069, 2010

    2010

  68. [76]

    The contribution of geometry to the human connectome

    J A Roberts, A Perry, A R Lord, G Roberts, P B Mitchell, R E Smith, F Calamante, and M Break- spear. The contribution of geometry to the human connectome. Neuroimage, 124:379–393, 2016

    2016

  69. [77]

    Controllability transition and nonlocality in network control

    J Sun and A E Motter. Controllability transition and nonlocality in network control. Physical review letters, 110(20):208701, 2013

    2013

  70. [78]

    The fundamental advantages of temporal networks

    A Li, S P Cornelius, Y-Y Liu, L Wang, and A-L Barab´ asi. The fundamental advantages of temporal networks. Science, 358(6366):1042–1046, 2017

    2017

  71. [79]

    Advancing neuromodulation using a dynamic control framework

    P Afshar, X Wei, M Lazarewicz, R Gupta, G Molnar, and T Denison. Advancing neuromodulation using a dynamic control framework. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc , 2011:671–674, 2011

    2011

  72. [80]

    Distributed control in a mean-field cortical network model: implications for seizure suppression

    S Ching, E N Brown, and M A Kramer. Distributed control in a mean-field cortical network model: implications for seizure suppression. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys , 86(2 Pt 1):021920, 2012

    2012

  73. [81]

    Emerging technology for advancing the treatment of epilepsy using a dynamic control framework

    S Stanslaski, J Giftakis, P Stypulkowski, D Carlson, P Afshar, P Cong, and T Denison. Emerging technology for advancing the treatment of epilepsy using a dynamic control framework. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc , 2011:753–756, 2011

    2011

  74. [82]

    Optimal control based seizure abatement using patient derived connectivity

    P N Taylor, J Thomas, N Sinha, J Dauwels, M Kaiser, T Thesen, and J Ruths. Optimal control based seizure abatement using patient derived connectivity. Front Neurosci, 9:202, 2015

    2015

  75. [83]

    Controlling seizure propagation in large- scale brain networks

    S Olmi, S Petkoski, M Guye, F Bartolomei, and V Jirsa. Controlling seizure propagation in large- scale brain networks. PLoS Comput Biol , 15(2):e1006805, 2019

    2019

  76. [84]

    Closed-loop control of a fragile network: application to seizure-like dynamics of an epilepsy model

    D Ehrens, D Sritharan, and S V Sarma. Closed-loop control of a fragile network: application to seizure-like dynamics of an epilepsy model. Front Neurosci, 9:58, 2015

    2015

  77. [85]

    Parameter estimation for maximizing controllability of linear brain-machine interfaces

    S Gowda, A L Orsborn, and J M Carmena. Parameter estimation for maximizing controllability of linear brain-machine interfaces. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc , 2012:1314–1317, 2012

    2012

  78. [86]

    Learn- ing in brain-computer interface control evidenced by joint decomposition of brain and behavior

    J Stiso, M-C Corsi, J O Garcia, J M Vettel, F De Vico Fallani, T H Lucas, and D S Bassett. Learn- ing in brain-computer interface control evidenced by joint decomposition of brain and behavior. psyArxiv, en69j, 2019

    2019

  79. [87]

    Spectral fingerprints of large-scale neuronal interactions

    M Siegel, T H Donner, and A K Engel. Spectral fingerprints of large-scale neuronal interactions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(2):121, 2012

    2012

  80. [88]

    Magnetoencephalography for brain electrophysiology and imaging

    S Baillet. Magnetoencephalography for brain electrophysiology and imaging. Nature neuroscience, 20(3):327, 2017. 31

    2017

  81. [89]

    Observability and controllability of nonlinear networks: The role of symmetry

    A J Whalen, S N Brennan, T D Sauer, and S J Schiff. Observability and controllability of nonlinear networks: The role of symmetry. Phys Rev X , 5:1, 2015

    2015

  82. [90]

    Intrinsic dynamics induce global symmetry in network controllability

    C Zhao, W X Wang, Y Y Liu, and J J Slotine. Intrinsic dynamics induce global symmetry in network controllability. Sci Rep, 5(8422), 2015

    2015

  83. [91]

    Effects of symmetry on the structural controllability of neural networks: A perspective

    A J Whalen, S N Brennan, T D Sauer, and S J Schiff. Effects of symmetry on the structural controllability of neural networks: A perspective. Proc Am Control Conf, 2016:5785–5790, 2016

    2016

  84. [92]

    Robust multiobjective controllability of complex neuronal networks

    Y Tang, H Gao, W Du, J Lu, A V Vasilakos, and J Kurths. Robust multiobjective controllability of complex neuronal networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform , 13(4):778–791, 2016

    2016

  85. [93]

    Controlling neural network responsiveness: tradeoffs and constraints

    H Keren and S Marom. Controlling neural network responsiveness: tradeoffs and constraints. Front Neuroeng, 7:11, 2014

    2014

  86. [94]

    Enabling controlling complex networks with local topological information

    G Li, L Deng, G Xiao, P Tang, C Wen, W Hu, J Pei, L Shi, and H E Stanley. Enabling controlling complex networks with local topological information. Sci Rep, 8(1):4593, 2018

    2018

  87. [95]

    Control of multilayer networks

    G Menichetti, L Dall’Asta, and G Bianconi. Control of multilayer networks. Sci Rep, 6:20706, 2016

    2016

  88. [96]

    Multiobjective identification of controlling areas in neuronal net- works

    Y Tang, H Gao, and J Kurths. Multiobjective identification of controlling areas in neuronal net- works. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform , 10(3):708–720, 2013

    2013

  89. [97]

    A constrained evolutionary computation method for detecting controlling regions of cortical networks

    Y Tang, Z Wang, H Gao, S Swift, and J Kurths. A constrained evolutionary computation method for detecting controlling regions of cortical networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform , 9(6):1569–1581, 2012

    2012

  90. [98]

    Identifying controlling nodes in neuronal networks in different scales

    Y Tang, H Gao, W Zou, and J Kurths. Identifying controlling nodes in neuronal networks in different scales. PLoS One, 7(7):e41375, 2012

    2012

  91. [99]

    Realistic control of network dynamics

    S P Cornelius, W L Kath, and A E Motter. Realistic control of network dynamics. Nat Commun, 4:1942, 2013

    1942

  92. [100]

    Networkcontrology

    A E Motter. Networkcontrology. Chaos, 25(9):097621, 2015

    2015

  93. [101]

    Structure-based control of complex networks with nonlinear dynamics

    J G T Za˜ nudo, G Yang, and R Albert. Structure-based control of complex networks with nonlinear dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114(28):7234–7239, 2017

    2017

  94. [102]

    Statistical mechanics of influence maximization with thermal noise

    C W Lynn and D D Lee. Statistical mechanics of influence maximization with thermal noise. European Physics Letters, 117, 2017

    2017

  95. [103]

    The energy landscape of neurophysiological activity implicit in brain network structure

    S Gu, M Cieslak, B Baird, S F Muldoon, S T Grafton, F Pasqualetti, and D S Bassett. The energy landscape of neurophysiological activity implicit in brain network structure. Sci Rep, 8(1):2507, 2018

    2018

  96. [104]

    Controllability analysis of the neural mass model with dynamic parameters

    X Liu, J Gao, G Wang, and Z W Chen. Controllability analysis of the neural mass model with dynamic parameters. Neural Comput, 29(2):485–501, 2017

    2017

  97. [105]

    Large-scale dynamic modeling of task-fMRI signals via subspace system identification

    C O Becker, D S Bassett, and V M Preciado. Large-scale dynamic modeling of task-fMRI signals via subspace system identification. J Neural Eng , 15(6):066016, 2018. 32

    2018

  98. [106]

    A dynamical systems framework to uncover the drivers of large-scale cortical activity

    A Ashourvan, S Pequito, M Bertolero, J Z Kim, D S Bassett, and B Litt. A dynamical systems framework to uncover the drivers of large-scale cortical activity. bioRxiv, 638718, 2019

    2019

  99. [107]

    Identifying nonlinear dynamical systems via generative recurrent neural networks with applications to fMRI

    G Koppe, J Toutounji, P Kirsch, S Lis, and D Durstewitz. Identifying nonlinear dynamical systems via generative recurrent neural networks with applications to fMRI. arXiv, 1902:07186, 2019

    1902

  100. [108]

    Anatomical accuracy of brain connections derived from diffusion mri tractography is inherently limited

    C Thomas, Q Y Frank, M O Irfanoglu, P Modi, K S Saleem, D A Leopold, and C Pierpaoli. Anatomical accuracy of brain connections derived from diffusion mri tractography is inherently limited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(46):16574–16579, 2014

    2014

  101. [109]

    Superficial white matter fiber systems impede detection of long-range cortical connections in diffusion mr tractography

    C Reveley, A K Seth, C Pierpaoli, A C Silva, D Yu, R C Saunders, D A Leopold, and Q Y Frank. Superficial white matter fiber systems impede detection of long-range cortical connections in diffusion mr tractography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112(21):E2820– E...

    2015

  102. [110]

    Tractography: where do we go from here? Brain connectivity, 1 (3):169–183, 2011

    S Jbabdi and H Johansen-Berg. Tractography: where do we go from here? Brain connectivity, 1 (3):169–183, 2011

    2011

  103. [111]

    Evaluation and statistical inference for human connectomes

    F Pestilli, J D Yeatman, A Rokem, K N Kay, and B A Wandell. Evaluation and statistical inference for human connectomes. Nature methods, 11(10):1058, 2014

    2014

  104. [112]

    Dynamics and control at feedback vertex sets

    B Fiedler, A Mochizuki, G Kurosawa, and D Saito. Dynamics and control at feedback vertex sets. i: Informative and determining nodes in regulatory networks. Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations, 25(3):563–604, 2013. 33

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.