% 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{Eickhoff:9544,
author = {Eickhoff, S. B. and Jbabdi, S. and Caspers, S. and Laird,
A.R. and Fox, P.T. and Zilles, K. and Behrens, T.E.J.},
title = {{A}natomical and {F}unctional {C}onnectivity of
{C}ytoarchitectonic {A}reas within the {H}uman {P}arietal
{O}perculum},
journal = {The journal of neuroscience},
volume = {30},
issn = {0270-6474},
address = {Washington, DC},
publisher = {Soc.},
reportid = {PreJuSER-9544},
pages = {6409 - 6421},
year = {2010},
note = {We acknowledge funding by the Human Brain
Project/Neuroinformatics Research (National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of
Mental Health; to K.Z.), the Human Brain Project
(R01-MH074457-01A1; to S. B. E.) and the Helmholz Initiative
on Systems-Biology "The Human Brain Model" (to K.Z. and
S.B.E.).},
abstract = {In monkeys, the somatosensory cortex on the parietal
operculum can be differentiated into several distinct
cortical fields. Potential human homologues for these areas
have already been defined by cytoarchitectonic mapping and
functional imaging experiments. Differences between the two
most widely studied areas [operculum parietale (OP) 1 and OP
4] within this region particularly pertain to their
connection with either the perceptive parietal network or
the frontal motor areas. In the present study, we
investigated differences in anatomical connection patterns
probed by probabilistic tractography on diffusion tensor
imaging data. Functional connectivity was then mapped by
coordinate-based meta-analysis of imaging studies.
Comparison between these two aspects of connectivity showed
a good congruency and hence converging evidence for an
involvement of these areas in matching brain networks. There
were, however, also several instances in which anatomical
and functional connectivity diverged, underlining the
independence of these measures and the need for multimodal
characterization of brain connectivity. The connectivity
analyses performed showed that the two largest areas within
the human parietal operculum region display considerable
differences in their connectivity to frontoparietal brain
regions. In particular, relative to OP 1, area OP 4 is more
closely integrated with areas responsible for basic
sensorimotor processing and action control, while OP 1 is
more closely connected to the parietal networks for higher
order somatosensory processing. These results are largely
congruent with data on nonhuman primates. Differences
between anatomical and functional connectivity as well as
between species, however, highlight the need for an
integrative view on connectivity, including comparison and
cross-validation of results from different approaches.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {INM-2 / JARA-BRAIN},
ddc = {590},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-2-20090406 / $I:(DE-82)080010_20140620$},
pnm = {Funktion und Dysfunktion des Nervensystems (FUEK409) /
89571 - Connectivity and Activity (POF2-89571)},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK409 / G:(DE-HGF)POF2-89571},
shelfmark = {Neurosciences},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000277358300027},
doi = {10.1523/jneuroci.5664-09.2010},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/9544},
}