Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Modeling the influences of non-local connectomic projections on geometrically constrained cortical dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that fast non-local projections shape cortical dynamics mainly on timescales below about 30 milliseconds and for spatially precise inputs, while slower spontaneous activity is captured by geometry alone.

desk verdict A careful modeling paper that gives a plausible timescale- and input-precision-dependent resolution to the geometry-vs-connectome debate, but the central separation rests on untested zero-delay, activity-preserving assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19800 v1 pith:N6D7W4A3 submitted 2025-06-24 q-bio.NC physics.bio-ph

Rishikesan Maran , Eli J. Müller , Ben D. Fulcher This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCphysics.bio-ph
keywords corticaldynamicsneuralfieldmodelsconnectomefastnon-localprojectionstravelingwavesresting-statefMRIstimulus-evokedresponsestimescales
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to resolve a puzzle: rapid, long-range axonal projections are clearly important for brain function, yet models built purely from cortical geometry predict many observed dynamics. It builds a single model in which populations interact through a continuous sheet (traveling waves) and through fast, non-local projections wired independently of geometry. Simulating the model shows that the projections strongly alter responses to precise, localized stimuli in the first roughly 30 ms, but contribute little to slower spontaneous fluctuations, where the geometry-only model is increasingly accurate. If right, the apparent contradiction between connectome-based and geometry-based models disappears: each is correct for a different regime, defined by timescale and input spatial precision.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FNP operator $(C\circ\phi)(r,t)=\sum_m c_m[\delta(r-b_m)\phi(a_m,t-\tau_m)-\delta(r-a_m)\phi(a_m,t)]$ appended to a two-dimensional neural field equation. Each FNP removes activity at its source and deposits it at its target, which preserves total space-time integrated activity and prevents the instabilities that arise when projections add gain; the paper sets conduction times $\tau_m=0$. This operator is what makes FNPs rerouting shortcuts rather than amplifiers, so their influence is transient and spatially local, and it is the mechanism behind the timescale dependence the paper reports.

What would settle it

Record stimulus-evoked and resting-state dynamics in the same animal while varying whether long-range tracts are intact versus silenced, and check whether differences between geometric and connectome models persist beyond 30 ms in slow fluctuations; alternatively, rerun the paper's connectome simulations with physiologically nonzero $\tau_m$ and with $c_m$ values that add net gain and see whether the slow-timescale dominance of geometry survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fast-conducting non-local projections (FNPs) act as brief, spatially specific perturbations to geometrically constrained cortical dynamics rather than as a global wiring correction. In the model, a single FNP creates a second wavefront at its target, but once the source and target wavefronts superimpose, the perturbation mostly cancels, so its largest effect is concentrated before about 30 ms; the integrated BOLD-like response captures less than a fifth of the maximum transient perturbation. With multiple FNPs, the perturbation grows with connection number but still peaks between 10 and 20 ms and decays at longer times. For noise-driven spontaneous activity, the perturbation shrinks as the input becomes spatially uniform, and hub or rich-club organization concentrates the effect near hubs without raising the spatial average, and for 50–100 FNPs it lowers it. The paper concludes that connectome specificity is needed for rapid processing of spatially targeted inputs, while geometric mean-field connectivity is a valid approximation for resting-state fMRI.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that FNPs only move activity one-for-one and with zero conduction delay is load-bearing: if real long-range projections add gain or arrive after delays, their slow-timescale influence could persist, and the claim that geometry dominates after 30 ms would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stimulus-evoked responses measured with voltage-sensitive dye, EEG, or calcium imaging should show FNP-mediated non-local activations within tens of milliseconds; geometry-only models will miss these.
  • Resting-state fMRI correlations over seconds can be approximated by geometric neural field models; adding connectome specificity may improve but is not required for the dominant pattern.
  • BOLD integration suppresses the FNP signature, so fMRI studies will tend to underestimate the role of long-range projections in fast processing.
  • Hub and rich-club connectivity matter mainly for inputs that arrive at hub regions; they do not increase and can reduce the spatial average of connectomic perturbation.
  • The same structural connectome supports different dynamical regimes depending on the spatial precision of the driving input, so structural weight alone does not fix functional influence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If conduction delays are nonzero, the 30 ms boundary is likely to shift and possibly smear: delayed FNP arrivals might re-excite activity after the initial wavefronts pass, extending the connectome's influence into slower dynamics. This is a testable sensitivity analysis the paper does not perform.
  • The activity-preserving design implies FNP effects are redistributive; in nonlinear or gain-amplifying regimes, repeated circulation through long-range loops could build persistent slow correlations, which would narrow the regime where geometry suffices.
  • A direct extension would predict that task-evoked fMRI, with spatially targeted stimuli, should show more connectome sensitivity than resting-state fMRI; comparing task versus rest eigenmode reconstruction accuracy would test this.
  • The concentration of FNP influence near hubs suggests that brain stimulation targeted at hub sites should produce more non-local, connectome-dependent spread than stimulation elsewhere, which is measurable with simultaneous stimulation and wide-field imaging.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a hybrid neural-field/connectome model in which cortical activity propagates both as traveling waves on a two-dimensional sheet and through discrete fast-conducting non-local projections (FNPs). The FNP operator, Eq. (24), is constructed to preserve total space-time integrated activity, and the numerical experiments fix all conduction delays at zero (Table 1). Using single-FNP and multi-FNP simulations, the paper shows that FNPs perturb stimulus-evoked dynamics most strongly on millisecond timescales (C(t) peaks near 8 ms and decays by about 30 ms), that the time-integrated BOLD perturbation is much smaller than the peak perturbation, and that FNP effects on noise-driven activity depend on the spatial precision of the input drive. The paper concludes that geometry-only neural field models are adequate for slow spontaneous fMRI-scale dynamics, while connectome-specific FNP wiring matters for fast, spatially precise evoked responses.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a mechanistic reconciliation of two previously conflicting literatures: geometric neural field models that ignore connectome specificity and connectome-based models that emphasize long-range projections. The manuscript is careful in its derivations (S1), clearly specifies numerical schemes and parameter values, and supports the central mechanism with an analytic estimate of the perturbation peak time. It also ships open code and makes falsifiable predictions, such as the millisecond-scale peak in FNP perturbation, the small BOLD-level perturbation, and the predicted increase of FNP effects with eigenmode order. These strengths make the paper a useful contribution to the field, provided the load-bearing sensitivity concerns below are addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (24), Table 1] The central timescale-separation result is obtained with τ_m = 0 and with a conservative FNP operator that preserves total activity. This is acknowledged as a limitation in the Discussion, but no sensitivity analysis is provided. With τ_m > 0, the FNP is no longer an instantaneous rerouting operator: source depletion at a_m and target deposition at b_m are separated in time, so the cancellation mechanism described in Fig. 3C ('the second wavefront arrives and cancels the perturbation') can be delayed; with non-conservative gain it can be absent altogether. Since the 14-cm FNP in Fig. 3 corresponds to physiological conduction delays of roughly 7–14 ms, the claim that FNP influences are confined to <30 ms is not yet secured for realistic parameter settings. Please add simulations with τ_m in this physiological range and with non-conservative gains, or provide an analytic argument that the conservative zero-delay limit is representative.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 7B, Fig. S3] The main-text evidence that hub and rich-club constraints reduce the aggregate perturbation to spontaneous dynamics is based on Cmax, the maximum over time of the instantaneous cosine distance for impulse stimuli, rather than on direct statistics of noise-driven spontaneous activity. The direct correlation-based check in Fig. S3 uses only 20 connectomes for N = 100 and is reported without the same ensemble sizes or tolerance details used elsewhere. Because the paper's broader conclusion concerns spontaneous fluctuations and resting-state fMRI, please either report the direct correlation-based measures for the full ensembles used in Fig. 7, or justify the Cmax proxy with quantitative evidence that it tracks the correlation-structure perturbation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [S1, Eq. (15)] The effective non-local gain is written as G_ew(b)G_we(b), but from Eqs. (10)–(13) the product should involve the source-point gain G_we(a). The final reduced equation is unaffected because the product is absorbed into the parameter c_m, but the notation should be corrected.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 7B] The text says the distributions are plotted in 'Figs 7B(i) and (ii)', but there are three panels; it should read '(i)–(iii)'.
  3. [§3.4] The phrase 'The decreasing in Cmax for increasing λe' should be revised to 'The decrease in Cmax with increasing λe'.
  4. [Table 1, Eq. (24)] The choice c_m = r^2 is described as equating local and non-local propagation strengths, but the magnitude of C(t) and Cz will scale with c_m; a brief statement that the qualitative conclusions are robust to this choice, or a supporting sensitivity test, would strengthen the presentation.
  5. [S2, Eq. (28)] The mollifier weights are normalized to sum to one, but the smoothing scale ϵ = 0.002 m is close to the grid spacing Δx = 0.002 m; a sentence explaining that this choice avoids spurious oscillations without biasing the delta-function approximation would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fast/slow timescale separation is an analytic consequence of the model's wave speed and geometry, and the BOLD/noise outputs are simulated, not fitted.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from Eq. (1) through the supporting derivations in S1-S3. The FNP operator in Eq. (24) is deliberately constructed to conserve total activity (Eq. (17) in S1), and Table 1 fixes tau_m = 0 for all m. These are explicit modeling assumptions, not predictions: the paper does not fit these choices to the conclusion that FNPs matter on fast but not slow timescales. The ~30 ms boundary is not a fitted cutoff; it is derived analytically as (L*sqrt(2)/2)/(r*gamma) ~ 28 ms, using r and gamma taken from externally published neural field models (Robinson et al. 1997; Jirsa & Haken 1997). The cosine dissimilarities C(t), Cz, and the spatial correlation functions gamma_p are computed as post-hoc summary statistics (Eqs. 32-35 and S3) from simulated fields; no model parameter is estimated from these quantities to force the reported dichotomy. The self-citations to prior work by the same or overlapping authors ([70], [83], [86], [93], [94]) are pointers to related modeling or empirical results and are not used as load-bearing justification for the central model, nor to forbid alternative mechanisms. The Discussion's limitations paragraph explicitly acknowledges the activity-preserving property and fixed zero conduction delays as assumptions and calls for future calibration; the absence of a sensitivity analysis for nonzero delays/gains is a correctness/generality risk, not a circular step, because those assumptions are inputs rather than outputs of the derivation. Overall, no equation or fitted parameter is equivalent by construction to the paper's conclusions; the score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

The central claim rests on the neural field approximation, on a strong FNP idealization (delta-function support, zero delay, activity preservation), and on linear BOLD and noise input assumptions. Of these, the activity-preserving zero-delay FNP is the most consequential: it guarantees stability and makes the perturbation decay after wave superposition, which is exactly the timescale separation the paper reports. The parameters r, gamma, nu0 are borrowed from prior neural field fits; c_m, tau_m, sigma_x, sigma_t are set by hand. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • r (lengthscale) = 0.086 m
    Characteristic lengthscale of homogeneous isotropic connectivity, taken from Robinson et al. (1997) EEG-fitted neural field model. Sets the wave transit time used in the 30 ms crossover estimate.
  • gamma = 116 s^-1
    Wave speed divided by r, from Robinson et al. (1997). Used in CFL condition and in analytic estimates of wave travel times.
  • nu0 = 0.756
    Cortical gain / effective regeneration rate from Jirsa-Haken (1997). Affects BOLD normalization factor (1-nu0)^-1, but not the wave-transit timescale.
  • c_m = 7.396e-3 m^2 (equals r^2)
    Connectivity strength of each FNP, set by hand to equate non-local coupling with nearest-neighbor geometric coupling. Chosen for simplicity, not fit to data.
  • tau_m = 0 s
    Zero conduction time for all FNPs, chosen to guarantee stability independent of connectome and to avoid delay-induced oscillations. This is a strong simplification; real FNPs have nonzero delays.
  • sigma_x = 4e-3 m
    Spatial width of impulse stimulus, set small to mimic a delta impulse without numerical oscillations.
  • sigma_t = 6e-4 s
    Temporal width of impulse stimulus, set small to mimic a delta impulse without numerical oscillations.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Cortical surface is a continuous 2D sheet with homogeneous and isotropic local connectivity.
    Standard neural field approximation (Robinson et al. 1997) that the paper deliberately contrasts with FNP specificity.
  • ad hoc to paper FNPs are unidirectional point-to-point projections described by Dirac delta propagators (Eq. 7) with zero conduction time (Table 1).
    Chosen to guarantee stability and simplicity; acknowledged in Discussion as an assumption that may not hold physiologically.
  • ad hoc to paper Total space-time integrated activity is preserved after adding any FNP (Eq. 17), enforced by calibrating gain terms.
    Introduced to prevent non-oscillatory instabilities; the paper notes this property may not be physiologically valid.
  • domain assumption BOLD signal is approximated by the zero-frequency temporal component (time integral) of neural activity (Eq. 32).
    Linear hemodynamic approximation cited to Robinson et al. 2006; not quantitatively validated within this paper.
  • domain assumption Spontaneous activity is modeled as spatially uniform space-time white noise input (Eq. 4).
    Standard simplification used in resting-state neural field models; real inputs may have spatial structure.
  • domain assumption The cortical hemisphere is represented as a flat square with periodic boundary conditions (a torus).
    Computational simplification, acknowledged in Discussion; closed geometry approximates a sphere but changes boundaries.
  • standard math Linear superposition of impulse responses describes noise-driven dynamics.
    The model is linear, so this decomposition is mathematically exact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the influences of non-local connectomic projections on geometrically constrained cortical dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6D7W4A3

@misc{pith2026250619800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the influences of non-local connectomic projections on geometrically constrained cortical dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6D7W4A3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19800}
}
abstract

The function and dynamics of the cortex are fundamentally shaped by the specific wiring configurations of its constituent axonal fibers, also known as the connectome. However, many dynamical properties of macroscale cortical activity are well captured by instead describing the activity as propagating waves across the cortical surface, constrained only by the surface's two-dimensional geometry. It thus remains an open question why the local geometry of the cortex can successfully capture macroscale cortical dynamics, despite neglecting the specificity of Fast-conducting, Non-local Projections (FNPs) which are known to mediate the rapid and non-local propagation of activity between remote neural populations. Here we address this question by developing a novel mathematical model of macroscale cortical activity in which cortical populations interact both by a continuous sheet and by an additional set of FNPs wired independently of the sheet's geometry. By simulating the model across a range of connectome topologies, external inputs, and timescales, we demonstrate that the addition of FNPs strongly shape the model dynamics of rapid, stimulus-evoked responses on fine millisecond timescales ($\lessapprox 30~\text{ms}$), but contribute relatively little to slower, spontaneous fluctuations over longer timescales ($> 30~\text{ms}$), which increasingly resemble geometrically constrained dynamics without FNPs. Our results suggest that the discrepant views regarding the relative contributions of local (geometric) and non-local (connectomic) cortico-cortical interactions are context-dependent: While FNPs specified by the connectome are needed to capture rapid communication between specific distant populations (as per the rapid processing of sensory inputs), they play a relatively minor role in shaping slower spontaneous fluctuations (as per resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19800 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of our mathematical model of macroscale cortical activity with local geometric (blue) and non-local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FNPs shape stimulus-evoked dynamics by enabling rapid, non-local propagation of activity between neural [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The addition of a single fast-conducting non-local projection (FNP) predominantly shapes stimulus-evoked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: When neural dynamics are resolved only over long timescales (such as those accessible using fMRI), a single FNP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The influence of an FNP on noise-driven dynamics is strongest for spatially precise input drives centered on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A connectome of multiple randomly positioned FNPs perturbs geometric dynamics more strongly with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The influence of a connectome of FNPs on spontaneous dynamics is either unaffected or reduced by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. L. Bressler and V . Menon. Large-scale brain networks in cognition: Emerging methods and principles.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6):277–290, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.04.004

    doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.04.004 2010

  2. [2]

    Horvát, R

    S. Horvát, R. G ˘am˘anut,, M. Ercsey-Ravasz, et al. Spatial Embedding and Wiring Cost Constrain the Functional Layout of the Cortical Network of Rodents and Primates. PLOS Biology, 14(7):e1002512, 2016. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pbio.1002512

    2016

  3. [3]

    P. M. Thompson, T. D. Cannon, K. L. Narr, et al. Genetic influences on brain structure. Nature Neuroscience, 4 (12):1253–1258, 2001. doi: 10.1038/nn758

    work page doi:10.1038/nn758 2001

  4. [4]

    Arnatkeviciute, B

    A. Arnatkeviciute, B. D. Fulcher, S. Oldham, et al. Genetic influences on hub connectivity of the human connec- tome. Nature Communications, 12(1):4237, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24306-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24306-2 2021

  5. [5]

    Schüz and V

    A. Schüz and V . Braitenberg. The Human Cortical White Matter: Quantitative Aspects of Cortico-Cortical Long-Range Connectivity. In Cortical Areas. CRC Press, 2002

    2002

  6. [6]

    Bullmore and O

    E. Bullmore and O. Sporns. The economy of brain network organization. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(5): 336–349, 2012. doi: 10.1038/nrn3214

    doi:10.1038/nrn3214 2012

  7. [7]

    R. W. Sperry. Cerebral Organization and Behavior. Science, 133(3466):1749–1757, 1961. doi: 10.1126/science. 133.3466.1749

    arXiv 1961

  8. [8]

    Geschwind

    N. Geschwind. Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. I. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 88(2):237–294,

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Wernicke

    C. Wernicke. Der aphasische Symptomenkomplex. In C. Wernicke, editor, Der aphasische Symptomencomplex: Eine psychologische Studie auf anatomischer Basis , pages 1–70. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1974. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-642-65950-8_1

    1974

  2. [10]

    Goldstein

    K. Goldstein. The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man . The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man. Zone Books, Brooklyn, NY , US, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    Catani and D

    M. Catani and D. H. ffytche. The rises and falls of disconnection syndromes. Brain: A Journal of Neurology , 128(Pt 10):2224–2239, 2005. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh622

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    J. X. O’Reilly, P. L. Croxson, S. Jbabdi, et al. Causal effect of disconnection lesions on interhemispheric func- tional connectivity in rhesus monkeys.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(34):13982–13987,

  5. [13]

    C. M. Filley and R. D. Fields. White matter and cognition: Making the connection. Journal of Neurophysiology, 116(5):2093–2104, 2016. doi: 10.1152/jn.00221.2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    D. S. Grayson, E. Bliss-Moreau, C. J. Machado, et al. The Rhesus Monkey Connectome Predicts Disrupted Functional Networks Resulting from Pharmacogenetic Inactivation of the Amygdala. Neuron, 91(2):453–466,

  7. [15]

    Ferezou, F

    I. Ferezou, F. Haiss, L. J. Gentet, et al. Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Cortical Sensorimotor Integration in Behav- ing Mice. Neuron, 56(5):907–923, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.007

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    M. H. Mohajerani, A. W. Chan, M. Mohsenvand, et al. Spontaneous cortical activity alternates between motifs defined by regional axonal projections. Nature Neuroscience, 16(10):1426–1435, 2013. doi: 10.1038/nn.3499. 31 Modeling non-local influences on cortical dynamics

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    D. H. Lim, M. H. Mohajerani, J. LeDue, et al. In vivo Large-Scale Cortical Mapping Using Channelrhodopsin- 2 Stimulation in Transgenic Mice Reveals Asymmetric and Reciprocal Relationships between Cortical Areas. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 6, 2012. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2012.00011

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Y . Liu, P. Bech, K. Tamura, et al. Cell class-specific long-range axonal projections of neurons in mouse whisker- related somatosensory cortices. eLife, 13:RP97602, 2024. doi: 10.7554/eLife.97602

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Hubatz, G

    S. Hubatz, G. Hucher, D. E. Shulz, and I. Férézou. Spatiotemporal properties of whisker-evoked tactile re- sponses in the mouse secondary somatosensory cortex. Scientific Reports , 10(1):763, 2020. doi: 10.1038/ s41598-020-57684-6

    2020

  12. [20]

    Park and K

    H.-J. Park and K. Friston. Structural and Functional Brain Networks: From Connections to Cognition. Science, 342(6158):1238411, 2013. doi: 10.1126/science.1238411

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    G. Deco, Y . Sanz Perl, P. Vuust, et al. Rare long-range cortical connections enhance human information process- ing. Current Biology, 31(20):4436–4448.e5, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.07.064

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    S. W. Oh, J. A. Harris, L. Ng, et al. A mesoscale connectome of the mouse brain. Nature, 508(7495):207–214,

  15. [23]

    D. C. Van Essen, S. M. Smith, D. M. Barch, et al. The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview. NeuroImage, 80:62–79, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    R. Kötter. Online retrieval, processing, and visualization of primate connectivity data from the CoCoMac Database. Neuroinformatics, 2(2):127–144, 2004. doi: 10.1385/NI:2:2:127

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    C. I. Bargmann and E. Marder. From the connectome to brain function. Nature Methods, 10(6):483–490, 2013. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2451

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Fornito and E

    A. Fornito and E. T. Bullmore. Connectomics: A new paradigm for understanding brain disease. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 25(5):733–748, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.02.011

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    P. A. Robinson, J. A. Henderson, N. C. Gabay, et al. Determination of Dynamic Brain Connectivity via Spectral Analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15:655576, 2021. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.655576

    2021

  20. [28]

    J. A. Henderson, K. M. Aquino, and P. Robinson. Empirical estimation of the eigenmodes of macroscale cortical dynamics: Reconciling neural field eigenmodes and resting-state networks. Neuroimage: Reports, 2(3):100103,

  21. [29]

    J. C. Pang, K. M. Aquino, M. Oldehinkel, et al. Geometric constraints on human brain function. Nature, pages 1–9, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06098-1

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    P. L. Nunez and B. A. Cutillo, editors. Neocortical Dynamics and Human EEG Rhythms . Oxford University Press, New York, 1995

    1995

  23. [31]

    V . K. Jirsa and H. Haken. Field Theory of Electromagnetic Brain Activity. Physical Review Letters , 77(5): 960–963, 1996. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.960

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    V . K. Jirsa and H. Haken. A derivation of a macroscopic field theory of the brain from the quasi-microscopic neu- ral dynamics. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 99(4):503–526, 1997. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2789(96)00166-2

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    P. A. Robinson, C. J. Rennie, and J. J. Wright. Propagation and stability of waves of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex. Physical Review E, 56(1):826–840, 1997. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.826

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    N. T. Markov, M. Ercsey-Ravasz, C. Lamy, et al. The role of long-range connections on the specificity of the macaque interareal cortical network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110(13):5187–5192,

  27. [35]

    R. F. Betzel and D. S. Bassett. Specificity and robustness of long-distance connections in weighted, interareal connectomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(21):E4880–E4889, 2018. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1720186115

    2018

  28. [36]

    M. P. Van Den Heuvel and O. Sporns. Rich-Club Organization of the Human Connectome. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(44):15775–15786, 2011. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3539-11.2011

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    J. A. Henderson and P. A. Robinson. Using Geometry to Uncover Relationships Between Isotropy, Homogeneity, and Modularity in Cortical Connectivity. Brain Connectivity, 3(4):423–437, 2013. doi: 10.1089/brain.2013. 0151

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Massimini, F

    M. Massimini, F. Ferrarelli, S. Sarasso, and G. Tononi. Cortical mechanisms of loss of consciousness: Insight from TMS/EEG studies. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 150(2/3):44–55, 2012. doi: 10.4449/aib.v150i2.1361

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Seguin, M

    C. Seguin, M. Jedynak, O. David, et al. Communication dynamics in the human connectome shape the cortex- wide propagation of direct electrical stimulation. Neuron, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2023.01.027

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    32 Modeling non-local influences on cortical dynamics

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218972110. 32 Modeling non-local influences on cortical dynamics

    doi

  33. [41]

    Spiegler, E

    A. Spiegler, E. C. A. Hansen, C. Bernard, et al. Selective Activation of Resting-State Networks following Focal Stimulation in a Connectome-Based Network Model of the Human Brain.eNeuro, 3(5):ENEURO.0068–16.2016,

    2016

  34. [42]

    M. R. Qubbaj and V . K. Jirsa. Neural Field Dynamics with Heterogeneous Connection Topology. Physical Review Letters, 98(23):238102, 2007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.238102

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    V . K. Jirsa. Neural Field Dynamics with Local and Global Connectivity and Time Delay. Philosophical Trans- actions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367(1891):1131–1143, 2009

    2009

  36. [44]

    V . K. Jirsa and J. A. S. Kelso. Spatiotemporal pattern formation in neural systems with heterogeneous connection topologies. Physical Review E, 62(6):8462–8465, 2000. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.8462

    doi

  37. [45]

    C. C. Kerr, C. J. Rennie, and P. A. Robinson. Physiology-based modeling of cortical auditory evoked potentials. Biological Cybernetics, 98(2):171–184, 2008. doi: 10.1007/s00422-007-0201-1

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    Spiegler, J

    A. Spiegler, J. K. Abadchi, M. Mohajerani, and V . K. Jirsa. In silico exploration of mouse brain dynamics by focal stimulation reflects the organization of functional networks and sensory processing.Network Neuroscience, 4(3):807–851, 2020. doi: 10.1162/netn_a_00152

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Sanz-Leon, P

    P. Sanz-Leon, P. A. Robinson, S. A. Knock, et al. NFTsim: Theory and Simulation of Multiscale Neural Field Dynamics. PLoS Computational Biology, 14(8):e1006387, 2018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006387

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0068-16.2016

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    N. C. Gabay and P. A. Robinson. Cortical geometry as a determinant of brain activity eigenmodes: Neural field analysis. Physical Review E, 96(3):032413, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.032413

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Robinson, C

    P. Robinson, C. Rennie, D. Rowe, and S. O’Connor. Estimation of multiscale neurophysiologic parameters by electroencephalographic means. Human Brain Mapping, 23(1):53–72, 2004. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20032

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    H. A. Swadlow and S. G. Waxman. Axonal conduction delays. Scholarpedia, 7(6):1451, 2012. doi: 10.4249/ scholarpedia.1451

    2012

  44. [52]

    J. A. Roberts, A. Perry, A. R. Lord, et al. The contribution of geometry to the human connectome. NeuroImage, 124:379–393, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.009. 33 Modeling non-local influences on cortical dynamics

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    K. N. Mukta, X. Gao, and P. A. Robinson. Neural field theory of evoked response potentials in a spherical brain geometry. Physical Review E, 99(6):062304, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.99.062304

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    N. I. Kavallaris and T. Suzuki. Non-Local Partial Differential Equations for Engineering and Biology: Math- ematical Modeling and Analysis , volume 31 of Mathematics for Industry . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-67944-0

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    L. Q. Uddin. Bring the Noise: Reconceptualizing Spontaneous Neural Activity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(9):734–746, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.06.003

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    P. A. Robinson. Interrelating anatomical, effective, and functional brain connectivity using propagators and neural field theory. Physical Review E, 85(1):011912, 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.85.011912

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    P. A. Robinson. Physical brain connectomics. Physical Review E, 99(1):012421, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE. 99.012421

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    Ercsey-Ravasz, N

    M. Ercsey-Ravasz, N. T. Markov, C. Lamy, et al. A Predictive Network Model of Cerebral Cortical Connectivity Based on a Distance Rule. Neuron, 80(1):184–197, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.036

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    P. A. Robinson, S. Sarkar, G. M. Pandejee, and J. A. Henderson. Determination of effective brain connectivity from functional connectivity with application to resting state connectivities. Physical Review E, 90(1):012707,

  52. [61]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.90.012707

    doi

  53. [62]

    Hagmann, L

    P. Hagmann, L. Cammoun, X. Gigandet, et al. Mapping the Structural Core of Human Cerebral Cortex. PLOS Biology, 6(7):e159, 2008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060159

    2008 doi

  54. [63]

    M. D. Fox and M. E. Raichle. Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9):700–711, 2007. doi: 10.1038/nrn2201

    2007 doi

  55. [64]

    M. P. van den Heuvel, R. S. Kahn, J. Goñi, and O. Sporns. High-cost, high-capacity backbone for global brain communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109(28):11372–11377, 2012. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1203593109

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    C. J. Honey, O. Sporns, L. Cammoun, et al. Predicting human resting-state functional connectivity from structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106(6):2035–2040, 2009. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 0811168106

    2009 doi

  57. [66]

    M. D. Greicius, K. Supekar, V . Menon, and R. F. Dougherty. Resting-State Functional Connectivity Reflects Structural Connectivity in the Default Mode Network. Cerebral Cortex, 19(1):72–78, 2009. doi: 10.1093/ cercor/bhn059

    2009

  58. [67]

    P. E. Vértes, T. Rittman, K. J. Whitaker, et al. Gene transcription profiles associated with inter-modular hubs and connection distance in human functional magnetic resonance imaging networks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1705):20...

    2016

  59. [68]

    B. D. Fulcher and A. Fornito. A transcriptional signature of hub connectivity in the mouse connectome. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(5):1435–1440, 2016. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513302113

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    R. F. Betzel, A. Avena-Koenigsberger, J. Goñi, et al. Generative models of the human connectome.NeuroImage, 124:1054–1064, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.041

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    B. R. Munn, E. J. Müller, I. Favre-Bulle, et al. Multiscale organization of neuronal activity unifies scale- dependent theories of brain function. Cell, 187(25):7303–7313.e15, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.10.004

    2024 doi

  62. [71]

    Iturria-Medina, R

    Y . Iturria-Medina, R. C. Sotero, E. J. Canales-Rodríguez, et al. Studying the human brain anatomical network via diffusion-weighted MRI and Graph Theory. NeuroImage, 40(3):1064–1076, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage. 2007.10.060

    2008 doi

  63. [72]

    Breakspear

    M. Breakspear. Dynamic models of large-scale brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 20(3):340–352, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nn.4497

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    J. D. Griffiths, S. P. Bastiaens, and N. Kaboodvand. Whole-Brain Modelling: Past, Present, and Future. In M. Giugliano, M. Negrello, and D. Linaro, editors, Computational Modelling of the Brain: Modelling Ap- proaches to Cells, Circuits and Networks, pages 313–355. Springer In...

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    C. J. Honey, R. Kötter, M. Breakspear, and O. Sporns. Network structure of cerebral cortex shapes functional connectivity on multiple time scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24):10240–10245,

  66. [75]

    Ghosh, Y

    A. Ghosh, Y . Rho, A. R. McIntosh, et al. Noise during Rest Enables the Exploration of the Brain’s Dynamic Repertoire. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(10):e1000196, 2008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000196

    2008 doi

  67. [76]

    J. M. Shine, L. D. Lewis, D. D. Garrett, and K. Hwang. The impact of the human thalamus on brain-wide infor- mation processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 24(7):416–430, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41583-023-00701-0

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    J. P. Sethna. Statistical Mechanics: Entropy, Order Parameters, and Complexity . Oxford Master Series in Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, second edition, second edition edition, 2021. 34 Modeling non-local influences on cortical dynamics

    2021

  69. [78]

    Chaudhuri, K

    R. Chaudhuri, K. Knoblauch, M.-A. Gariel, et al. A Large-Scale Circuit Mechanism for Hierarchical Dynamical Processing in the Primate Cortex. Neuron, 88(2):419–431, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.008

    2015 doi

  70. [79]

    G. Deco, V . K. Jirsa, P. A. Robinson, et al. The Dynamic Brain: From Spiking Neurons to Neural Masses and Cortical Fields. PLOS Computational Biology, 4(8):e1000092, 2008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000092

    2008 doi

  71. [80]

    Jirsa, K

    V . Jirsa, K. Jantzen, A. Fuchs, and J. Kelso. Spatiotemporal forward solution of the EEG and MEG using network modeling. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 21(5):493–504, 2002. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2002.1009385

    2002 arXiv

  72. [81]

    V ohryzek, Y

    J. V ohryzek, Y . Sanz-Perl, M. L. Kringelbach, and G. Deco. Human brain dynamics are shaped by rare long- range connections over and above cortical geometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(1): e2415102122, 2025. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2415102122

    2025 doi

  73. [82]

    G. Deco, Y . S. Perl, and M. L. Kringelbach. Non-local Schrödinger diffusion model reveals mechanisms of critical brain dynamics. Cell Reports Physical Science, page 102663, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2025.102663

    2025

  74. [83]

    Maran, E

    R. Maran, E. J. Müller, and B. D. Fulcher. Analyzing the brain’s dynamic response to targeted stimulation using generative modeling. Network Neuroscience, 9(1):237–258, 2025. doi: 10.1162/netn_a_00433

    2025 doi

  75. [84]

    Robinson, X

    P. Robinson, X. Zhao, K. Aquino, et al. Eigenmodes of brain activity: Neural field theory predictions and comparison with experiment. NeuroImage, 142:79–98, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.050

    2016 doi

  76. [85]

    G. Deco, V . Jirsa, A. R. McIntosh, et al. Key role of coupling, delay, and noise in resting brain fluctuations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(25):10302–10307, 2009. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901831106

    2009 doi

  77. [86]

    Abdelnour, H

    F. Abdelnour, H. U. V oss, and A. Raj. Network diffusion accurately models the relationship between structural and functional brain connectivity networks. NeuroImage, 90:335–347, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013. 12.039

    2014 doi

  78. [87]

    T. T. Liu. Noise contributions to the fMRI signal: An overview. NeuroImage, 143:141–151, 2016. doi: 10.1016/ j.neuroimage.2016.09.008

    2016

  79. [88]

    G. Deco, M. L. Kringelbach, V . K. Jirsa, and P. Ritter. The dynamics of resting fluctuations in the brain: Metasta- bility and its dynamical cortical core. Scientific Reports, 7(1):3095, 2017. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03073-5

    2017 doi

  80. [89]

    Faskowitz, D

    J. Faskowitz, D. Moyer, D. A. Handwerker, et al. Commentary on Pang et al. (2023) Nature, 2023

    2023

  81. [90]

    K. R. Patil, K. Jung, and S. B. Eickhoff. Commentary on Pang et al. (2023) Nature, 2023

    2023

  82. [91]

    T. K. Sato. Long-range connections enrich cortical computations. Neuroscience Research, 162:1–12, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2020.05.004

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    R. M. Hutchison, T. Womelsdorf, E. A. Allen, et al. Dynamic functional connectivity: Promise, issues, and interpretations. NeuroImage, 80:360–378, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.079

    2013 doi

  84. [93]

    E. J. Müller, B. R. Munn, and J. M. Shine. Diffuse neural coupling mediates complex network dynam- ics through the formation of quasi-critical brain states. Nature Communications , 11(1):6337, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19716-7

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    P. A. Robinson. Near-critical corticothalamic eigenmodes: Effects of nonuniform connectivity on modes, activity, and communication channels. Physical Review E, 111(1):014404, 2025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.111.014404

    2025 doi

  86. [95]

    E. J. Müller, B. R. Munn, K. M. Aquino, et al. The music of the hemispheres: Cortical eigenmodes as a physical basis for large-scale brain activity and connectivity patterns. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16:1062487,

  87. [96]

    35 Modeling non-local influences on cortical dynamics

    doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.1062487. 35 Modeling non-local influences on cortical dynamics

    2022

  88. [97]

    H. P. Langtangen. Finite difference methods for wave motion. 2016

    2016

  89. [98]

    Sina Mansour, H

    L. Sina Mansour, H. Behjat, D. V . De Ville, et al. Eigenmodes of the brain: Revisiting connectomics and geometry, 2024

    2024

  90. [104]

    E. J. Müller, B. R. Munn, M. J. Redinbaugh, et al. The non-specific matrix thalamus facilitates the cortical information processing modes relevant for conscious awareness. Cell Reports, 42(8), 2023. doi: 10.1016/j. celrep.2023.112844

    2023

  91. [105]

    https://github.com/DynamicsAndNeuralSystems/geometricFNPmodel

    geometricFNPmodel. https://github.com/DynamicsAndNeuralSystems/geometricFNPmodel

  92. [106]

    P. A. Robinson. Propagator theory of brain dynamics. Physical Review E, 72(1):011904, 2005. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevE.72.011904

    2005

  93. [108]

    L. R. Lines, R. Slawinski, and R. P. Bording. A recipe for stability of finite-difference wave-equation computa- tions. Geophysics, 64(3):967–969, 1999. doi: 10.1190/1.1444605. 36

    1999 doi

  94. [1965]

    doi: 10.1093/brain/88.2.237

    doi

  95. [2007]

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701519104

    doi

  96. [2013]

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305062110

    doi

  97. [2014]

    doi: 10.1038/nature13186

    doi

  98. [2016]

    doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.06.005

    2016 doi

  99. [2022]

    doi: 10.1016/j.ynirp.2022.100103

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.