% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Uddin:1016530,
      author       = {Uddin, Lucina Q. and Betzel, Richard F. and Cohen, Jessica
                      R. and Damoiseaux, Jessica S. and De Brigard, Felipe and
                      Eickhoff, Simon B. and Fornito, Alex and Gratton, Caterina
                      and Gordon, Evan M. and Laird, Angela R. and Larson-Prior,
                      Linda and McIntosh, A. Randal and Nickerson, Lisa D. and
                      Pessoa, Luiz and Pinho, Ana Luísa and Poldrack, Russell A.
                      and Razi, Adeel and Sadaghiani, Sepideh and Shine, James M.
                      and Yendiki, Anastasia and Yeo, B. T. Thomas and Spreng, R.
                      Nathan},
      title        = {{C}ontroversies and progress on standardization of
                      large-scale brain network nomenclature},
      journal      = {Network neuroscience},
      volume       = {7},
      number       = {3},
      issn         = {2472-1751},
      address      = {Cambridge, MA},
      publisher    = {The MIT Press},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-03696},
      pages        = {864 - 905},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {Progress in scientific disciplines is accompanied by
                      standardization of terminology. Network neuroscience, at the
                      level of macroscale organization of the brain, is beginning
                      to confront the challenges associated with developing a
                      taxonomy of its fundamental explanatory constructs. The
                      Workgroup for HArmonized Taxonomy of NETworks (WHATNET) was
                      formed in 2020 as an Organization for Human Brain Mapping
                      (OHBM)–endorsed best practices committee to provide
                      recommendations on points of consensus, identify open
                      questions, and highlight areas of ongoing debate in the
                      service of moving the field toward standardized reporting of
                      network neuroscience results. The committee conducted a
                      survey to catalog current practices in large-scale brain
                      network nomenclature. A few well-known network names (e.g.,
                      default mode network) dominated responses to the survey, and
                      a number of illuminating points of disagreement emerged. We
                      summarize survey results and provide initial considerations
                      and recommendations from the workgroup. This perspective
                      piece includes a selective review of challenges to this
                      enterprise, including (1) network scale, resolution, and
                      hierarchies; (2) interindividual variability of networks;
                      (3) dynamics and nonstationarity of networks; (4)
                      consideration of network affiliations of subcortical
                      structures; and (5) consideration of multimodal information.
                      We close with minimal reporting guidelines for the cognitive
                      and network neuroscience communities to adopt.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5253 - Neuroimaging (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {37781138},
      UT           = {WOS:001050899300001},
      doi          = {10.1162/netn_a_00323},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1016530},
}