Intrinsic human brain activity enables inference about the pathways and processes of information transfer in the brain. Studying intrinsic activity, when the brain is in a resting state, has given insights into many aspects of healthy and diseased brain function. Resting-state function is characterised by spatially separated regions organised into networks of strongly correlated activity (Beckmann et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2012). These networks represent both local connectivity and longer-range communication. Importantly, the strength of resting-state functional connectivity reflects many aspects of cognitive function. Connectivity in the brain changes throughout the life cycle: networks associated with attention and control may continue to develop in late adolescence (Barnes et al., 2016) and network integrity degrades during the ageing process (Dennis and Thompson, 2014). Many neurological diseases, including schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease (Sheline and Raichle, 2013; Greicius, 2008), have been associated with major alterations to the strength and organisation of functional connectivity (Stam and van Straaten, 2012; Stam, 2014; van Straaten and Stam, 2013). In healthy subjects, intrinsic brain activity can predict not only performance in a task, but also the specific regions which will show increased activity during that task (Sala-Llonch et al., 2012; Yamashita et al., 2015; Zou et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2013; Tavor et al., 2016). Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that the organisation of human brain function at rest is associated with a broad range of behavioural and life-style traits, and reflects a generalised measure of intelligence (Smith et al., 2015).

Here, we set out to identify the relative importance of genetic and shared environmental factors in determining these fundamental patterns of cortical communication. We employ functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) recordings to perform a heritability analysis on the strength of functional connectivity within a network of 39 regions. Additionally, we perform the same heritability analysis on source-localised magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recordings (Van Veen et al., 1997) from a subset of the subjects. This complementary analysis allows us to focus specifically on communication mediated by the coupling (correlation) of oscillatory amplitudes, within particular frequency bands, using MEG as a more direct measure of neuronal activity that is unaffected by vascular confounds.

We present separate analyses of functional networks estimated from the fMRI response (Smith et al., 2013), and of MEG-derived networks in the theta (4–8 Hz), alpha (8–13 Hz) and beta (13–30 Hz) oscillatory bands. These bands span the frequency range within which the most convincing patterns of resting-state MEG connectivity have been shown to be expressed (Hipp et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2014; Hillebrand et al., 2012; Brookes et al., 2011; Mantini et al., 2007; Marzetti et al., 2013; de Pasquale et al., 2012; de Pasquale et al., 2016). We employ resting-state recordings from 820 subjects from the Human Connectome Project (HCP; WU-Minn HCP Consortium et al., 2013); these data are publicly available, and have undergone a standardised pre-processing procedure. The HCP is a twin study, and the subjects from the S900 data release with all fMRI (MEG) resting-state scans comprise 103 (19) monozygotic twin pairs, who share 100% of their genetic structure and a common environment, and 54 (13) dizygotic twin pairs, who share 50% of their genetic structure and a common environment. Each subject provided three MEG scans (of 6 minutes each), and four fMRI scans (of 15 minutes each). This stratified sample allows estimation of the relative effects of genetic influence and environmental factors on the variability observed in connectivity structure.

We compare the similarity in overall network structure between pairs of subjects, assessing the extent to which the functional connectivity of two subjects becomes more alike as their proportion of shared background and genetics increases. We fit variance-component models on each network edge, using recently developed permutation and bootstrap-based methods for fast, accurate, non-parametric statistical inference with family-wise control of type I errors (Chen, 2014). This provides estimates of the mean genetic and shared environmental influences on the observed phenotypic variation in cortical connectivity. We run similar heritability analyses on the oscillatory power and BOLD variance within the regions of interest (ROIs) which constitute the network nodes, to determine whether the observed effects of genes and developmental environment on cortical connectivity could be attributable to simple differences in signal strength. Additionally, we analyse the heritability of cortical folding patterns in each ROI, to investigate whether genetic control of anatomical structure contributes to the heritability of connectivity.

The functional connectivity measured with fMRI was estimated among 39 functionally defined cortical regions of interest (network nodes) by computing partial correlations between BOLD time courses representing each region. ROIs were spatially contiguous, covered both hemispheres, and were generated using fMRI from HCP subjects—see Materials and methods. The functional connectivity measured with MEG, corresponding to amplitude coupling of oscillations in each frequency band, was assessed between the same set of regions by correlating fluctuations in oscillatory power (Engel et al., 2013; O'Neill et al., 2015). Potential confounds to these MEG functional connectivity estimates induced by the leakage of source-reconstructed signals were reduced using a multivariate orthogonalisation technique (Colclough et al., 2015). These methods represent established practice for determining networks of functional connectivity in the two modalities (Varoquaux and Craddock, 2013; Smith et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2013; Brookes et al., 2012; Hipp et al., 2012; Colclough et al., 2016; de Pasquale et al., 2012; Hillebrand et al., 2012). The group-averaged functional networks are shown in Figure 1A and rendered in 3D in the supplementary videos.

Figure 1 with 6 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

The fMRI connectome shows strong bilateral connectivity, together with fronto-parietal correlations and coupling between the anterior cingulate and posterior cingulate cortices, reflecting well-known patterns of resting-state networks in fMRI (Beckmann et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2012). In the MEG data, the alpha band shows a strongly connected visual system, with strong connectivity from the visual cortex extending out to the temporal and parietal lobes, and a highly coupled posterior cingulate. The beta-band exhibits strong bilateral coupling across the sensorimotor cortices, with connectivity continuing through the superior parietal lobes and down to the occipital cortex. The theta band also exhibits visual and motor connectivity. These patterns of connectivity are in general agreement with previously reported results in these frequency bands (Hillebrand et al., 2012; Brookes et al., 2011; Baker et al., 2014; de Pasquale et al., 2012; de Pasquale et al., 2016; Hipp et al., 2012; Marzetti et al., 2013; Mantini et al., 2007; Colclough et al., 2015).

Figure 1B (left-hand plot, middle row) shows that the structure of fMRI and MEG networks of functional activity are progressively more similar as the strength of relationship is increased, from unrelated subjects, through siblings and dizygotic twins to monozygotic twins ($p<{10}^{-3}$ in each case, except for $p_{MZ<DZ}^{\alpha }=0.003$). (Although siblings and dizygotic twins share the same proportion of genetic material, siblings have different ages and inevitably share less similar environments than do twins. This may account for the significant increase in network similarity from siblings to dizygotic twins.) Also displayed, for comparison, is the distribution of network similarity over repeated recording sessions within the same subject. Tests for significance were performed by assessing the difference in mean of the logarithm of network separation, relative to the mean separation, using a non-parametric permutation-based $t$-test. All 21 tests performed for this paper are quoted after a false discovery rate correction for multiple comparisons.

A three-component variance model was fitted for the variability observed in the strength of coupling in individual edges. This model ascribes proportions of the variance in a phenotype, ${\sigma }^2$, either to additive shared genetics (A), shared environmental factors (C), or to measurement error and other known sources of variance (E),

We estimate each of these components as a fraction of the total variance, giving ${\displaystyle h^2=A/{\sigma }^2}$, known as the heritability of a trait, ${\displaystyle c^2=C/{\sigma }^2}$ and ${\displaystyle c^2=E/{\sigma }^2}$. These components are related by the identity

Estimates of the mean heritability and contribution from common environment over these connections were constructed with bootstrapped confidence intervals, and the significance of the mean heritability was tested using non-parametric permutation-based methods. Although there is a large amount of variability in the data which is not attributable to either of these factors, we found that additive genetics accounted for 17%, on average, of the functional connectivity measured with fMRI. In MEG, 19% of the variability in oscillatory coupling strengths in the beta band, and 8% in the alpha band, was determined by additive genetics. These estimates and comparisons are presented graphically in Figure 1C, and tabulated with confidence intervals and p-values in Supplementary files 2 and 3.

In the absence of a permutation scheme which is invariant under the null hypothesis of equal genetic and shared environmental factors, we additionally estimate $h^2-c^2$ with bootstrapped confidence intervals to investigate the relative importance of these two components. In the fMRI data and in beta-band oscillations, where we also find significant genetic influences, we identify a differential effect of heritability and twins’ shared environment (estimates with 95% confidence intervals, $h^2-c^2=0.15[0.13,0.16]$ for the fMRI and $h^2-c^2=0.13[0.04,0.22]$ for the beta-band results). Permutation tests for a significant contribution of heritability on each individual functional connection were performed, but no edges were significant after correcting for family-wise error at $\alpha =0.05$. Parameter estimates for individual fMRI connections are shown in Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

To investigate whether our results were particular to our choice of parcellation, we re-ran our heritability analyses using the 15-dimensional ICA decomposition of resting-state fMRI recordings released by the HCP. This parcellation contains entire resting-state networks as each node of the decomposition, yielding a functional connectivity matrix that describes inter-network, rather than intra-network relationships. We found significant genetic influences in the fMRI data ($h^2=0.29[0.26,0.33]$, $p=1\times {10}^{-4}$, uncorrected), but not for any of the activity recorded with MEG (uncorrected permutation-based $p$-values for $h^2>0$ were 0.69, 0.06 and 0.14 for the theta, alpha and beta bands respectively). The parameter estimates and confidence intervals are presented in Supplementary file 4.

The three-component model was also fitted to the variability in the logarithm of the signal power in each ROI, in both the fMRI and MEG data. Significant influences of genetic factors, on average over the nodes, were found only in the fMRI data (Figure 1D).

Finally, we fitted the heritability model to the cortical surface curvature of each subject, computing average $h^2$ within each ROI (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Cortical curvature exhibits the highest heritability around the sensorimotor areas and insula (as has been reported previously, in an analysis using a different sample of the HCP subjects; Sotiropoulos et al., 2015). We compared this spatial profile of the heritability of curvature to the average heritability of network connections for each ROI within each modality (that is, for each ROI, the average $h^2$ of all connections involved with that ROI). In general, no significant positive correlations were found between the spatial arrangement of cortical curvature heritability and the heritability of network connections in particular ROIs. The exception was moderate correlation ($\rho =0.39$) with the MEG theta band connectivity pattern, for which there was no significant heritability of connection strength in the first instance. (These data are presented in Supplementary file 5.)

Using resting-state fMRI and MEG recordings released as part of the HCP, we have constructed the functional network structure that expresses the coupling in MEG oscillatory power within three frequency bands, and fMRI partial correlation networks, among 39 ROIs. Based on these analyses, we make two key claims. First, genetic factors help to determine the strength and form of cortical oscillatory communication and functional connectivity. We have shown that the entire functional network structure is found to be more similar for two subjects the more closely they are related, and we estimate that the average heritability of individual connection strengths is about 15–18% for BOLD correlations, and between 13% and 26% (1% and 25%) for correlations in beta-band (alpha-band) power fluctuations. Second, genetic make-up is more important, on average, than the shared environment among twins when determining the strength of these couplings (with a difference of 13–16 percentage points in fMRI and 4–22% in the MEG beta-band).

Our results are drawn from two imaging modalities, fMRI and MEG, with functional connectivities estimated from the same set of ROIs. Our analyses with these technologies produce complementary assessments of functional connectivity: slow time scale couplings of functional activation indexed by BOLD response, and faster co-ordinations in oscillatory amplitude measured with MEG. (MEG is a more direct measure of neuronal oscillatory activity, unaffected by vascular confounds.) We found, over both modalities (although, for the MEG results, only in the beta band), the same differential pattern of influence on functional connectivity from additive genetic factors and twins’ shared developmental environments. Given the range of connectivity structures that are expressed in beta-band oscillations and in the slow time scale couplings measured in fMRI, these results suggest that genes have broad control over functional connectivity in the cortex, with a contribution that outweighs shared environmental factors.

These complementary results in fMRI and MEG alpha- and beta-band oscillations, drawn from the same parcellation, provide strong new support for a neural basis of the genetic influences on BOLD connectivities. The heritability of functional connectivity measured with electrophysiology has been reported before (Posthuma et al., 2005; Schutte et al., 2013; recording heritabilities of 20–75%, predominantly in the alpha and beta bands). However, these analyses were performed between EEG sensors, using synchronisation likelihood for network estimation, a measure that is sensitive to volume conduction artefacts. We use a connectivity metric that explicitly suppresses these artefacts (Colclough et al., 2015; Brookes et al., 2012; Hipp et al., 2012; O'Neill et al., 2015), reducing the influence of heritable anatomical features and cortical folding patterns on our results. Additionally, by working with cortical reconstructions of the oscillatory sources, we gain not only substantial artefact rejection (Schoffelen and Gross, 2009; Hillebrand et al., 2005) but also interpretability; the functional networks that we identify in the beta band and which drive our genetic analyses are mostly in motor and posterior regions, in correspondence with previous findings (Hipp et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2014; Hillebrand et al., 2012; Brookes et al., 2011; Brookes et al., 2012; Mantini et al., 2007; Marzetti et al., 2013; de Pasquale et al., 2012; de Pasquale et al., 2016). Our results therefore advance the strength of the evidence for a neural mechanism that mediates the genetic control over functional connectivity. Current data cannot, however, reveal the mechanistic details of this control. We can speculate that genes will control both network dynamics (in terms of synaptic strengths or conductance delays) as well as biophysical properties (such as the distribution of local neuron populations and their immediate feedback systems)—but in the future it may be possible to combine neuroimaging results with large-scale biophysical models (Deco et al., 2008; Cabral et al., 2014) to better understand these influences.

We did not find significant genetic control of functional connectivity in the theta frequency band. This may be in part because of the difficulty in cleanly estimating functional connectivity in MEG, particularly outside the alpha and beta bands (Colclough et al., 2016), but may also be because the 89 HCP subjects with resting-state MEG scans present a much smaller sample for study than the rfMRI HCP dataset. Even the conclusions from our alpha- and beta-band analyses, while coincident with the results in fMRI, are necessarily summary characterisations of the role of genes and environment on cortical oscillatory coupling. Our claims are based on significant results from robust non-parametric tests, but the confidence intervals on our parameter estimates are inevitably broad.

The primary parcellation that we employed consists of focal, contiguous regions. Our heritability analyses therefore reflect the genetic and shared environmental influences on the strengths of connections between the component nodes of the established resting-state networks (such as the default mode, motor, visual and dorsal attention networks). In an additional analysis, we found significant effects of additive genetic factors on the strength of inter-network connections in fMRI, using an alternative lower-dimensional parcellation based on 15 entire networks as nodes for the connectome. This suggests that genetic control of functional connectivity extends across multiple spatial scales of synchronisation. For oscillatory activity measured with MEG, it is not clear that it is meaningful to summarise, in the same manner as for an fMRI inter-network analysis, the collective behaviour of these gross network structures using a single time course: there is growing evidence from MEG that the extended networks from the fMRI literature are composed of smaller sub-networks that synchronise and de-synchronise on relatively fast time scales (Baker et al., 2014; de Pasquale et al., 2012; de Pasquale et al., 2016). That we found no significant genetic effects on the connections among this additional set of 15 networks in our MEG data may simply reflect the unsuitability of static whole-network parcellations for this modality.

We have taken a comprehensive approach to our heritability analyses by controlling for a wide range of potential confounds. Of the heritable effects of physiology, anatomy and noise on functional connectivity, the influences of signal power, cortical folding patterns and subject motion are perhaps most worthy of discussion.

Higher coupling strengths are commonly observed between regions with higher signal power in both fMRI and MEG estimates of functional connectivity. This effect can be caused just by the increased signal to noise ratio in the observed regions, rather than any difference in underlying coupling strength (Friston, 2011). We fitted a genetic and environmental factors model to the power in each ROI of our analysis. In our MEG data, we found no influence of these factors on the measured signal strength, and so can exclude this signal-to-noise effect as a likely confound in the beta-band MEG results. There was a significantly heritable component to signal power in the fMRI data—but this is not surprising in and of itself. To control for its influence on our results, we have included measures of the signal power in each node as confound regressors in all of our genetic analyses of functional connectivity. (Signal power is not a perfect proxy for the signal to noise ratio, as the measured power will be affected by fluctuations in both the noise and the signal.)

Cortical folding patterns have been shown to have modest heritability (Sotiropoulos et al., 2015; Botteron et al., 2008; van Essen et al., 2014); although the strength of genetic control and the mechanism of influence are not yet certain (Tallinen et al., 2016; Gómez-Robles et al., 2015; Ronan and Fletcher, 2015). This has particular implications for the MEG measurements, where the arrangement of cortical folds will have a strong impact on the signals measured outside the scalp, and on the leakage (or volume conduction) of signals between different sensors. Our connectivity estimates use methods that are robust to source leakage artefacts (Colclough et al., 2015; Brookes et al., 2012; Hipp et al., 2012; O'Neill et al., 2015), and the lack of strong correlations between the spatial profile of the heritability of cortical curvature and the heritability of edges associated with each ROI (as shown in Figure 1—figure supplement 2 and Supplementary file 5) is good evidence, we believe, that this confound has not seriously impacted our findings.

Subjects’ motion inside a scanner during resting-state recordings is heritable (Couvy-Duchesne et al., 2014), and motion is a known resting-state confound for functional connectivity analyses (Siegel et al., 2016). While our pre-processing steps include appropriate registration of images into static reference frames, and the removal of components from the data that are associated with motion, we have additionally included in our genetic analyses a summary measure of participants’ movements within their fMRI scans, to reduce our co-measurement of heritable motion traits. Lastly, we are unable to specifically control for eye movement in our genetic analyses, as no tracked eye recordings are available for the HCP resting-state scans. (Independent components of the sensor data that correspond to eye movements are, however, removed during pre-processing.) However, it is worth noting that although saccades and micro-saccades are thought to be linked to gamma-band oscillatory patterns (Muthukumaraswamy, 2013; Orekhova et al., 2015), which we did not study, there is no strong evidence-base that they influence resting-state recordings at lower frequencies.

We used variance-component models to represent the observed variability in functional connectivity as a set of contributions from additive genetic factors and from the shared developmental environment in twin pairs. Our conclusions rest on a number of assumptions implicit in this model (Boomsma et al., 2002). These include an assumption that people choose their partners randomly; that the relevant genetic mechanisms are additive; and that there is no significant interaction between genes and the shared environment—an effect which has been reported to exist in various aspects of cognition (Nisbett et al., 2012). Most importantly, we assume that monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs will equally share exposure to environmental factors in their upbringing. If this is an accurate assumption, then estimates of $c^2$ and $h^2$ are informative about the relative roles of developmental environment and additive genetics in the variation of functional connectivity phenotypes. While there is evidence in support of the equal-environment assumption (Felson, 2014; Conley et al., 2013), it has been challenged on the basis that monozygotic twins look more alike, behave more alike, and are treated more similarly than dizygotic twins (Joseph, 1998). Without entering into the discussion on this point, we note that if this assumption fails in our sample, it would lead to an overestimation of genetic heritability and an underestimation of the impact of developmental environment, therefore potentially weakening our conclusions on the differential effect of these two influences. Lastly, the $c^2$ term in our model cannot be solely identified with developmental environment. It encompasses all effects which are common between twins, which may include intra-uterine and mitochondrial influences, in addition to the shared environmental factors.

Our results add substantially to the evidence for significant genetic control of human cortical connectivity. Structural connectivity, the distribution of the white matter tracts across the brain that enable communication, is known to be highly heritable (Zhu et al., 2015; Jahanshad et al., 2012; Kochunov et al., 2015). (A study of the heritability of structural connections with the HCP dataset estimated a mean heritability of 25%; Sotiropoulos et al., 2015) Previous studies of the heritability of functional connectivity with fMRI (which, in general, fail to control for subject motion, node power or brain size, and some of which focus instead on network topology), do also find significant genetic effects with heritability estimates lying between 20% and 60% (Smit et al., 2008; Fornito et al., 2011; van den Heuvel et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2013; Jansen et al., 2015; Glahn et al., 2010). However, connectivity estimation is noisy, and as heritability is expressed as a fraction of the observed phenotypic variance (including measurement noise), we can expect the parameter estimates of heritability to change as network estimation methods improve. The important comparison, therefore, is of the relative importance of genes to the developmental and environmental factors shared by twins. Our observation of the stronger influence of the former over the latter on functional connectivity is a relationship shared in several other cognitive, behavioural and physiological traits measured in adults (Polderman et al., 2015).

Twin studies cannot probe the precise genetic mechanisms of these influences. Recent work (Hawrylycz et al., 2015; IMAGEN consortium et al., 2015) has correlated the profiles of gene expression in different regions of cortex, and compared these patterns of gene transcription to resting-state fMRI connectivity profiles, identifying sets of genes with co-expression patterns that reflect networks of functional connectivity. However, detailed investigations into the specific genes affecting healthy resting-state connectivity must await large datasets with coincident resting-state functional imaging and genotyping. (Genetic data will soon be available both for the HCP and for the UK Biobank imaging data.)

Taken together, our results provide strong additional evidence for a neural basis of the heritability of functional connectivity in the human brain. We identify genetic influences both in fMRI datasets and in (alpha- and beta-band) electrophysiological recordings, using functional network analyses on the same cortical parcellation. Our results more comprehensively control for a wide range of important confounds than previous work in this area. We have made particular emphasis of the increased importance of genetics over the developmental environment in determining cortical functional connectivity. The relevance and implications of this finding are widespread. Functional connectivity profiles are associated with intelligence, which is well-known to be heritable (Bartels et al., 2002; Neisser et al., 1996). But connectivity is also implicated with a very broad range of behavioural and life-style factors, including earning power, measures of health, various assessments of cognitive performance, and self-reported life satisfaction (Smith et al., 2015). As the findings of the Moving To Opportunity experiment in the United States make clear (Ludwig et al., 2013; Chetty et al., 2015), together with results from studies on the effects of schooling, socio-economic environment and adoption (Nisbett et al., 2012), the environment in which individuals develop can still make a significant impact on their performance and long-term outcomes. However, while genes are not the only important factor, results such as these presented here suggest that nature, more so than nurture, is a major force in determining integrated cognitive function and, by extension, cognitive capability.

1. 1. David C Van Essen
   2. Stephen M Smith
   3. Deanna M Barch
   4. Timothy E J Behrens
   5. Essa Yacoub
   6. Kamil Ugurbil
   7. WU-Minn HCP Consortium

   (2013) The Human Connectome Project HCP900 data release

   Open access dataset available from ConnectomeDB (https://db.humanconnectome.org/app/template/Login.vm). Account registration is required and access to certain data elements such as family structure is subject to restricted use terms (please see http://www.humanconnectome.org/study/hcp-young-adult/data-use-terms).

   http://www.humanconnectome.org/study/hcp-young-adult/document/900-subjects-data-release
2. 1. L J Larson-Prior
   2. R Oostenveld
   3. S Della Penna
   4. G Michalareas
   5. F Prior
   6. A Babajani-Feremi
   7. J-M Schoffelen
   8. L Marzetti
   9. F de Pasquale
   10. F di Pompeo
   11. J Stout
   12. Mark W Woolrich
   13. Q Luo
   14. R Bucholz
   15. P Fries
   16. V Pizella
   17. G Romani
   18. M Corbetta
   19. A Z Snyder
   20. WU-Minn HCP Consortium

   (2013) The Human Connectome Project HCP900 MEG data release

   Open access dataset available from ConnectomeDB (https://db.humanconnectome.org/app/template/Login.vm). Account registration is required and access to certain data elements such as family structure is subject to restricted use terms (please see http://www.humanconnectome.org/study/hcp-young-adult/data-use-terms).

   http://www.humanconnectome.org/study/hcp-young-adult/document/900-subjects-data-release

1. 1. Baker AP
   2. Brookes MJ
   3. Rezek IA
   4. Smith SM
   5. Behrens T
   6. Probert Smith PJ
   7. Woolrich M

   (2014) Fast transient networks in spontaneous human brain activity

   eLife 3:e01867.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01867

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Barachant A
   2. Bonnet S
   3. Congedo M
   4. Jutten C

   (2013) Classification of covariance matrices using a Riemannian-based kernel for BCI applications

   Neurocomputing 112:172–178.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2012.12.039

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Barnes JJ
   2. Woolrich MW
   3. Baker K
   4. Colclough GL
   5. Astle DE

   (2016) Electrophysiological measures of resting state functional connectivity and their relationship with working memory capacity in childhood

   Developmental Science 19:19–31.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12297

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bartels M
   2. Rietveld MJ
   3. Van Baal GC
   4. Boomsma DI

   (2002) Genetic and environmental influences on the development of intelligence

   Behavior Genetics 32:237–249.

   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101977262

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Beckmann CF
   2. DeLuca M
   3. Devlin JT
   4. Smith SM

   (2005) Investigations into resting-state connectivity using independent component analysis

   Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360:1001–1013.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1634

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Benjamini Y
   2. Hochberg Y

   (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing

   Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B  57:289–300.

   https://doi.org/10.2307/2346101

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Boomsma D
   2. Busjahn A
   3. Peltonen L

   (2002) Classical twin studies and beyond

   Nature Reviews Genetics 3:872–882.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg932

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Botteron KN
   2. Dierker DL
   3. Todd R
   4. Alexopolous J
   5. Seung D
   6. Han K
   7. Nishino T
   8. Reid E
   9. Todorov A
   10. Van Essen DC

   (2008)

   The 14 Th Annual Meeting of the Organizationfor Human Brain Mapping

   Human vs computer algorithm choices in identifying identical twin pairs based on cortical shape characteristics–who’s better?, The 14 Th Annual Meeting of the Organizationfor Human Brain Mapping.

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Brookes MJ
   2. Woolrich M
   3. Luckhoo H
   4. Price D
   5. Hale JR
   6. Stephenson MC
   7. Barnes GR
   8. Smith SM
   9. Morris PG

   (2011) Investigating the electrophysiological basis of resting state networks using magnetoencephalography

   PNAS 108:16783–16788.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112685108

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Brookes MJ
    2. Woolrich MW
    3. Barnes GR

    (2012) Measuring functional connectivity in MEG: a multivariate approach insensitive to linear source leakage

    NeuroImage 63:910–920.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.048

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cabral J
    2. Luckhoo H
    3. Woolrich M
    4. Joensson M
    5. Mohseni H
    6. Baker A
    7. Kringelbach ML
    8. Deco G

    (2014) Exploring mechanisms of spontaneous functional connectivity in MEG: how delayed network interactions lead to structured amplitude envelopes of band-pass filtered oscillations

    NeuroImage 90:423–435.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. Thesis

    1. Chen X

    (2014)

    Accelerated estimation and inference for heritability of fMRI data

    University of Warwick.

    • Google Scholar
13. Book

    1. Chetty R
    2. Hendren N
    3. Katz LF

    (2015) The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence From the Moving to Opportunity Experiment

    National Bureau of Economic Research.

    https://doi.org/10.3386/w21156

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Colclough GL
    2. Brookes MJ
    3. Smith SM
    4. Woolrich MW

    (2015) A symmetric multivariate leakage correction for MEG connectomes

    NeuroImage 117:439–448.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.071

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Colclough GL
    2. Woolrich MW
    3. Tewarie PK
    4. Brookes MJ
    5. Quinn AJ
    6. Smith SM

    (2016) How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics?

    NeuroImage 138:284–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.070

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Conley D
    2. Rauscher E
    3. Dawes C
    4. Magnusson PK
    5. Siegal ML

    (2013) Heritability and the equal environments assumption: evidence from multiple samples of misclassified twins

    Behavior Genetics 43:415–426.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-013-9602-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Couvy-Duchesne B
    2. Blokland GA
    3. Hickie IB
    4. Thompson PM
    5. Martin NG
    6. de Zubicaray GI
    7. McMahon KL
    8. Wright MJ

    (2014) Heritability of head motion during resting state functional MRI in 462 healthy twins

    NeuroImage 102:424–434.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.08.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. de Pasquale F
    2. Della Penna S
    3. Snyder AZ
    4. Marzetti L
    5. Pizzella V
    6. Romani GL
    7. Corbetta M

    (2012) A cortical core for dynamic integration of functional networks in the resting human brain

    Neuron 74:753–764.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. de Pasquale F
    2. Della Penna S
    3. Sporns O
    4. Romani GL
    5. Corbetta M

    (2016) A Dynamic Core Network and Global Efficiency in the Resting Human Brain

    Cerebral Cortex 26:4015–4033.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv185

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Deco G
    2. Jirsa VK
    3. Robinson PA
    4. Breakspear M
    5. Friston K

    (2008) The dynamic brain: from spiking neurons to neural masses and cortical fields

    PLoS Computational Biology 4:e1000092.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000092

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dennis EL
    2. Thompson PM

    (2014) Functional brain connectivity using fMRI in aging and Alzheimer's disease

    Neuropsychology Review 24:49–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-014-9249-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Engel AK
    2. Gerloff C
    3. Hilgetag CC
    4. Nolte G

    (2013) Intrinsic coupling modes: multiscale interactions in ongoing brain activity

    Neuron 80:867–886.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. Preprint

    1. Farahibozorg S
    2. Henson RN
    3. Hauk O

    (2017) Adaptive cortical parcellations for source reconstructed EEG/MEG connectomes

    BioRxiv.

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/01/04/097774

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Felson J

    (2014) What can we learn from twin studies? A comprehensive evaluation of the equal environments assumption

    Social Science Research 43:184–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.10.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Fornito A
    2. Zalesky A
    3. Bassett DS
    4. Meunier D
    5. Ellison-Wright I
    6. Yücel M
    7. Wood SJ
    8. Shaw K
    9. O'Connor J
    10. Nertney D
    11. Mowry BJ
    12. Pantelis C
    13. Bullmore ET

    (2011) Genetic influences on cost-efficient organization of human cortical functional networks

    Journal of Neuroscience 31:3261–3270.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4858-10.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Friston KJ

    (2011) Functional and effective connectivity: a review

    Brain Connectivity 1:13–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2011.0008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Glahn DC
    2. Winkler AM
    3. Kochunov P
    4. Almasy L
    5. Duggirala R
    6. Carless MA
    7. Curran JC
    8. Olvera RL
    9. Laird AR
    10. Smith SM
    11. Beckmann CF
    12. Fox PT
    13. Blangero J

    (2010) Genetic control over the resting brain

    PNAS 107:1223–1228.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0909969107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Coalson TS
    3. Robinson EC
    4. Hacker CD
    5. Harwell J
    6. Yacoub E
    7. Ugurbil K
    8. Andersson J
    9. Beckmann CF
    10. Jenkinson M
    11. Smith SM
    12. Van Essen DC

    (2016) A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex

    Nature 536:171–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18933

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Greicius M

    (2008) Resting-state functional connectivity in neuropsychiatric disorders

    Current Opinion in Neurology 21:424–430.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0b013e328306f2c5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Gómez-Robles A
    2. Hopkins WD
    3. Schapiro SJ
    4. Sherwood CC

    (2015) Relaxed genetic control of cortical organization in human brains compared with chimpanzees

    PNAS 112:14799–14804.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1512646112

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Hawrylycz M
    2. Miller JA
    3. Menon V
    4. Feng D
    5. Dolbeare T
    6. Guillozet-Bongaarts AL
    7. Jegga AG
    8. Aronow BJ
    9. Lee CK
    10. Bernard A
    11. Glasser MF
    12. Dierker DL
    13. Menche J
    14. Szafer A
    15. Collman F
    16. Grange P
    17. Berman KA
    18. Mihalas S
    19. Yao Z
    20. Stewart L
    21. Barabási AL
    22. Schulkin J
    23. Phillips J
    24. Ng L
    25. Dang C
    26. Haynor DR
    27. Jones A
    28. Van Essen DC
    29. Koch C
    30. Lein E

    (2015) Canonical genetic signatures of the adult human brain

    Nature Neuroscience 18:1832–1844.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4171

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hillebrand A
    2. Barnes GR
    3. Bosboom JL
    4. Berendse HW
    5. Stam CJ

    (2012) Frequency-dependent functional connectivity within resting-state networks: an atlas-based MEG beamformer solution

    NeuroImage 59:3909–3921.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hillebrand A
    2. Singh KD
    3. Holliday IE
    4. Furlong PL
    5. Barnes GR

    (2005) A new approach to neuroimaging with magnetoencephalography

    Human Brain Mapping 25:199–211.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Hipp JF
    2. Hawellek DJ
    3. Corbetta M
    4. Siegel M
    5. Engel AK

    (2012) Large-scale cortical correlation structure of spontaneous oscillatory activity

    Nature Neuroscience 15:884–890.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3101

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hodge MR
    2. Horton W
    3. Brown T
    4. Herrick R
    5. Olsen T
    6. Hileman ME
    7. McKay M
    8. Archie KA
    9. Cler E
    10. Harms MP
    11. Burgess GC
    12. Glasser MF
    13. Elam JS
    14. Curtiss SW
    15. Barch DM
    16. Oostenveld R
    17. Larson-Prior LJ
    18. Ugurbil K
    19. Van Essen DC
    20. Marcus DS

    (2016) ConnectomeDB--Sharing human brain connectivity data

    NeuroImage 124:1102–1107.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Jahanshad N
    2. Hibar DP
    3. Ryles A
    4. Toga AW
    5. McMahon KL
    6. de Zubicaray GI
    7. Hansell NK
    8. Montgomery GW
    9. Martin NG
    10. Wright MJ
    11. Thompson PM

    (2012) Discovery of genes that affect human brain connectivty: a genome-wide analysis of the connectome

    Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging pp. 542–545.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2012.6235605

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Jansen AG
    2. Mous SE
    3. White T
    4. Posthuma D
    5. Polderman TJ

    (2015) What twin studies tell us about the heritability of brain development, morphology, and function: a review

    Neuropsychology Review 25:27–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-015-9278-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Joseph J

    (1998)

    The equal environment assumption of the classical twin method: a critical analysis

    Journal of Mind and Behaviour 19:325–258.

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kochunov P
    2. Jahanshad N
    3. Marcus D
    4. Winkler A
    5. Sprooten E
    6. Nichols TE
    7. Wright SN
    8. Hong LE
    9. Patel B
    10. Behrens T
    11. Jbabdi S
    12. Andersson J
    13. Lenglet C
    14. Yacoub E
    15. Moeller S
    16. Auerbach E
    17. Ugurbil K
    18. Sotiropoulos SN
    19. Brouwer RM
    20. Landman B
    21. Lemaitre H
    22. den Braber A
    23. Zwiers MP
    24. Ritchie S
    25. van Hulzen K
    26. Almasy L
    27. Curran J
    28. deZubicaray GI
    29. Duggirala R
    30. Fox P
    31. Martin NG
    32. McMahon KL
    33. Mitchell B
    34. Olvera RL
    35. Peterson C
    36. Starr J
    37. Sussmann J
    38. Wardlaw J
    39. Wright M
    40. Boomsma DI
    41. Kahn R
    42. de Geus EJ
    43. Williamson DE
    44. Hariri A
    45. van 't Ent D
    46. Bastin ME
    47. McIntosh A
    48. Deary IJ
    49. Hulshoff Pol HE
    50. Blangero J
    51. Thompson PM
    52. Glahn DC
    53. Van Essen DC

    (2015) Heritability of fractional anisotropy in human white matter: a comparison of Human Connectome Project and ENIGMA-DTI data

    NeuroImage 111:300–311.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Luckhoo H
    2. Hale JR
    3. Stokes MG
    4. Nobre AC
    5. Morris PG
    6. Brookes MJ
    7. Woolrich MW

    (2012) Inferring task-related networks using independent component analysis in magnetoencephalography

    NeuroImage 62:530–541.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.046

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Ludwig J
    2. Duncan GJ
    3. Gennetian LA
    4. Katz LF
    5. Kessler RC
    6. Kling JR
    7. Sanbonmatsu L

    (2013) Long-term neighborhood effects on low-income families: evidence from Moving to Opportunity

    American Economic Review 103:226–231.

    https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.3.226

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Mantini D
    2. Perrucci MG
    3. Del Gratta C
    4. Romani GL
    5. Corbetta M

    (2007) Electrophysiological signatures of resting state networks in the human brain

    PNAS 104:13170–13175.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700668104

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Marrelec G
    2. Krainik A
    3. Duffau H
    4. Pélégrini-Issac M
    5. Lehéricy S
    6. Doyon J
    7. Benali H

    (2006) Partial correlation for functional brain interactivity investigation in functional MRI

    NeuroImage 32:228–237.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Marzetti L
    2. Della Penna S
    3. Snyder AZ
    4. Pizzella V
    5. Nolte G
    6. de Pasquale F
    7. Romani GL
    8. Corbetta M

    (2013) Frequency specific interactions of MEG resting state activity within and across brain networks as revealed by the multivariate interaction measure

    NeuroImage 79:172–183.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.062

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Muthukumaraswamy SD

    (2013) High-frequency brain activity and muscle artifacts in MEG/EEG: a review and recommendations

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00138

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Neisser U
    2. Boodoo G
    3. Bouchard TJ
    4. Boykin AW
    5. Brody N
    6. Ceci SJ
    7. Halpern DF
    8. Loehlin JC
    9. Perloff R
    10. Sternberg RJ
    11. Urbina S

    (1996) Intelligence: knowns and unknowns

    American Psychologist 51:77–101.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Ng B
    2. Dressler M
    3. Varoquaux G
    4. Poline JB
    5. Greicius M
    6. Thirion B

    (2014) Transport on Riemannian manifold for functional connectivity-based classification

    Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention 17:405–417.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_51

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Nisbett RE
    2. Aronson J
    3. Blair C
    4. Dickens W
    5. Flynn J
    6. Halpern DF
    7. Turkheimer E

    (2012) Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments

    American Psychologist 67:130–159.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. O'Neill GC
    2. Barratt EL
    3. Hunt BA
    4. Tewarie PK
    5. Brookes MJ

    (2015) Measuring electrophysiological connectivity by power envelope correlation: a technical review on MEG methods

    Physics in Medicine and Biology 60:R271–R295.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/21/R271

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Orekhova EV
    2. Butorina AV
    3. Sysoeva OV
    4. Prokofyev AO
    5. Nikolaeva AY
    6. Stroganova TA

    (2015) Frequency of gamma oscillations in humans is modulated by velocity of visual motion

    Journal of Neurophysiology 114:244–255.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00232.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Polderman TJ
    2. Benyamin B
    3. de Leeuw CA
    4. Sullivan PF
    5. van Bochoven A
    6. Visscher PM
    7. Posthuma D

    (2015) Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies

    Nature Genetics 47:702–709.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Posthuma D
    2. de Geus EJ
    3. Mulder EJ
    4. Smit DJ
    5. Boomsma DI
    6. Stam CJ

    (2005) Genetic components of functional connectivity in the brain: the heritability of synchronization likelihood

    Human Brain Mapping 26:191–198.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20156

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. IMAGEN consortium
    2. Richiardi J
    3. Altmann A
    4. Milazzo AC
    5. Chang C
    6. Chakravarty MM
    7. Banaschewski T
    8. Barker GJ
    9. Bokde AL
    10. Bromberg U
    11. Büchel C
    12. Conrod P
    13. Fauth-Bühler M
    14. Flor H
    15. Frouin V
    16. Gallinat J
    17. Garavan H
    18. Gowland P
    19. Heinz A
    20. Lemaître H
    21. Mann KF
    22. Martinot JL
    23. Nees F
    24. Paus T
    25. Pausova Z
    26. Rietschel M
    27. Robbins TW
    28. Smolka MN
    29. Spanagel R
    30. Ströhle A
    31. Schumann G
    32. Hawrylycz M
    33. Poline JB
    34. Greicius MD

    (2015) BRAIN NETWORKS. Correlated gene expression supports synchronous activity in brain networks

    Science 348:1241–1244.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255905

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Robinson EC
    2. Jbabdi S
    3. Glasser MF
    4. Andersson J
    5. Burgess GC
    6. Harms MP
    7. Smith SM
    8. Van Essen DC
    9. Jenkinson M

    (2014) MSM: a new flexible framework for Multimodal Surface Matching

    NeuroImage 100:414–426.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.069

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Robinson SE
    2. Vrba J

    (1999)

    Recent Advances in Biomagnetism

    302–305, Functional neuroimaging by synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM), Recent Advances in Biomagnetism, Sendai, Japan.

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Ronan L
    2. Fletcher PC

    (2015) From genes to folds: a review of cortical gyrification theory

    Brain Structure and Function 220:2475–2483.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0961-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Sala-Llonch R
    2. Peña-Gómez C
    3. Arenaza-Urquijo EM
    4. Vidal-Piñeiro D
    5. Bargalló N
    6. Junqué C
    7. Bartrés-Faz D

    (2012) Brain connectivity during resting state and subsequent working memory task predicts behavioural performance

    Cortex 48:1187–1196.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.07.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Salimi-Khorshidi G
    2. Douaud G
    3. Beckmann CF
    4. Glasser MF
    5. Griffanti L
    6. Smith SM

    (2014) Automatic denoising of functional MRI data: combining independent component analysis and hierarchical fusion of classifiers

    NeuroImage 90:449–468.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Schoffelen JM
    2. Gross J

    (2009) Source connectivity analysis with MEG and EEG

    Human Brain Mapping 30:1857–1865.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20745

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Schutte NM
    2. Hansell NK
    3. de Geus EJ
    4. Martin NG
    5. Wright MJ
    6. Smit DJ

    (2013) Heritability of resting state EEG functional connectivity patterns

    Twin Research and Human Genetics 16:962–969.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.55

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Sheline YI
    2. Raichle ME

    (2013) Resting state functional connectivity in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

    Biological Psychiatry 74:340–347.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.11.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Siegel JS
    2. Mitra A
    3. Laumann TO
    4. Seitzman BA
    5. Raichle M
    6. Corbetta M
    7. Snyder AZ

    (2016) Data quality influences observed links between functional connectivity and behaviour

    Cerebral Cortex.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw253

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Smit DJ
    2. Stam CJ
    3. Posthuma D
    4. Boomsma DI
    5. de Geus EJ

    (2008) Heritability of "small-world" networks in the brain: a graph theoretical analysis of resting-state EEG functional connectivity

    Human Brain Mapping 29:1368–1378.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20468

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Smith SM
    2. Miller KL
    3. Moeller S
    4. Xu J
    5. Auerbach EJ
    6. Woolrich MW
    7. Beckmann CF
    8. Jenkinson M
    9. Andersson J
    10. Glasser MF
    11. Van Essen DC
    12. Feinberg DA
    13. Yacoub ES
    14. Ugurbil K

    (2012) Temporally-independent functional modes of spontaneous brain activity

    PNAS 109:3131–3136.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121329109

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Smith SM
    2. Miller KL
    3. Salimi-Khorshidi G
    4. Webster M
    5. Beckmann CF
    6. Nichols TE
    7. Ramsey JD
    8. Woolrich MW

    (2011) Network modelling methods for FMRI

    NeuroImage 54:875–891.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.063

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Smith SM
    2. Nichols TE
    3. Vidaurre D
    4. Winkler AM
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Glasser MF
    7. Ugurbil K
    8. Barch DM
    9. Van Essen DC
    10. Miller KL

    (2015) A positive-negative mode of population covariation links brain connectivity, demographics and behavior

    Nature Neuroscience 18:1565–1567.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4125

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Smith SM
    2. Vidaurre D
    3. Beckmann CF
    4. Glasser MF
    5. Jenkinson M
    6. Miller KL
    7. Nichols TE
    8. Robinson EC
    9. Salimi-Khorshidi G
    10. Woolrich MW
    11. Barch DM
    12. Uğurbil K
    13. Van Essen DC

    (2013) Functional connectomics from resting-state fMRI

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17:666–682.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. Conference

    1. Sotiropoulos SN
    2. Chen X
    3. Smith SM
    4. Van Essen DC
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Nichols TE
    7. Jbabdi S

    (2015)

    Heritability of structural connections from HCP diffusion MRI data

    Proceedings of the 23 Rd Annual Conference of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance inMedicine. 721.

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Stam CJ
    2. van Straaten EC

    (2012) The organization of physiological brain networks

    Clinical Neurophysiology 123:1067–1087.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2012.01.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Stam CJ

    (2014) Modern network science of neurological disorders

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15:683–695.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3801

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Tallinen T
    2. Chung JY
    3. Rousseau F
    4. Girard N
    5. Lefèvre J
    6. Mahadevan L

    (2016) On the growth and form of cortical convolutions

    Nature Physics 12:588–593.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3632

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Taulu S
    2. Simola J
    3. Kajola M

    (2005) Applications of the signal space separation method

    IEEETransactions on Signal Processing 53:3359–3372.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2005.853302

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Tavor I
    2. Parker Jones O
    3. Mars RB
    4. Smith SM
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Jbabdi S

    (2016) Task-free MRI predicts individual differences in brain activity during task performance

    Science 352:216–220.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Thompson PM
    2. Ge T
    3. Glahn DC
    4. Jahanshad N
    5. Nichols TE

    (2013) Genetics of the connectome

    NeuroImage 80:475–488.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. van den Heuvel MP
    2. van Soelen IL
    3. Stam CJ
    4. Kahn RS
    5. Boomsma DI
    6. Hulshoff Pol HE

    (2013) Genetic control of functional brain network efficiency in children

    European Neuropsychopharmacology 23:19–23.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2012.06.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. Conference

    1. van Essen DC
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Robinson E
    4. Chen X
    5. Jenkinson M
    6. Dierker DL
    7. Nichols TE
    8. Smith SM

    (2014)

    Heritability of brain structure, function, and connectivity in human connectome project data

    The 20 Th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping.

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. van Straaten EC
    2. Stam CJ

    (2013) Structure out of chaos: functional brain network analysis with EEG, MEG, and functional MRI

    European Neuropsychopharmacology 23:7–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2012.10.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Van Veen BD
    2. Van Drongelen W
    3. Yuchtman M
    4. Suzuki A

    (1997) Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering

    IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 44:867–880.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/10.623056

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Varoquaux G
    2. Craddock RC

    (2013) Learning and comparing functional connectomes across subjects

    NeuroImage 80:405–415.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Woolrich M
    2. Hunt L
    3. Groves A
    4. Barnes G

    (2011) MEG beamforming using Bayesian PCA for adaptive data covariance matrix regularization

    NeuroImage 57:1466–1479.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. WU-Minn HCP Consortium
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Sotiropoulos SN
    4. Wilson JA
    5. Coalson TS
    6. Fischl B
    7. Andersson JL
    8. Xu J
    9. Jbabdi S
    10. Webster M
    11. Polimeni JR
    12. Van Essen DC
    13. Jenkinson M

    (2013) The minimal preprocesing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project

    NeuroImage 80:105–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. WU-Minn HCP Consortium
    2. Larson-Prior LJ
    3. Oostenveld R
    4. Della Penna S
    5. Michalareas G
    6. Prior F
    7. Babajani-Feremi A
    8. Schoffelen JM
    9. Marzetti L
    10. de Pasquale F
    11. Di Pompeo F
    12. Stout J
    13. Woolrich M
    14. Luo Q
    15. Bucholz R
    16. Fries P
    17. Pizzella V
    18. Romani GL
    19. Corbetta M
    20. Snyder AZ

    (2013) Adding dynamics to the Human Connectome Project with MEG

    NeuroImage 80:190–201.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.056

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. WU-Minn HCP Consortium
    2. Van Essen DC
    3. Smith SM
    4. Barch DM
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Yacoub E
    7. Ugurbil K

    (2013) The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: an overview

    NeuroImage 80:62–79.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Yamashita M
    2. Kawato M
    3. Imamizu H

    (2015) Predicting learning plateau of working memory from whole-brain intrinsic network connectivity patterns

    Scientific Reports 5:7622.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07622

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. Conference

    1. Zhu D
    2. Zhan L
    3. Faskowitz J
    4. Daianu M
    5. Jahanshad N
    6. de Zubicaray G
    7. McMahon KL
    8. Martin NG
    9. Wright MJ
    10. Thompson PM

    (2015)

    Genetic analysis of structural brain connectivity using DICCOL models of diffusion MRI in 522 twins

    Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. pp. 1167–1171.

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Zou Q
    2. Ross TJ
    3. Gu H
    4. Geng X
    5. Zuo XN
    6. Hong LE
    7. Gao JH
    8. Stein EA
    9. Zang YF
    10. Yang Y

    (2013) Intrinsic resting-state activity predicts working memory brain activation and behavioral performance

    Human Brain Mapping 34:3204–3215.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22136

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Giles L Colclough

   1. Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   2. Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   3. Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   giles.colclough@ohba.ox.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1074-7186

2. Stephen M Smith

   Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Thomas E Nichols

   1. Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
   2. Warwick Manufacturing Group, International Manufacturing Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Software, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Anderson M Winkler

   Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Stamatios N Sotiropoulos

   1. Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   2. Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Software, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Matthew F Glasser

   School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. David C Van Essen

   School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   Senior editor, eLife

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7044-4721

8. Mark W Woolrich

   1. Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity (OHBA), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   2. Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   3. Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Software, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   mark.woolrich@ohba.ox.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

• 4,216

  views

• 635

  downloads

• 109

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.