How did language evolve? Since the human lineage diverged from that of the other great apes millions of years ago, changes in the brain have given rise to behaviors that are unique to humans, such as language. Some of these changes involved alterations in the size and relative positions of brain areas, while others required changes in the connections between those regions. But did these changes occur independently, or can the changes observed in one actually explain the changes we see in the other?

One way to answer this question is to use neuroimaging to compare the brains of related species, using different techniques to examine different aspects of brain structure. Imaging a fatty substance called myelin, for example, can produce maps showing the size and position of brain areas. Measuring how easily water molecules diffuse through brain tissue, by contrast, provides information about connections between areas.

Eichert et al. performed both types of imaging in macaques and healthy human volunteers, and compared the results to existing data from chimpanzees. Computer simulations were used to manipulate the myelin-based images so that equivalent brain areas in each species occupied the same positions. In most cases, the distortions – or 'warping' – needed to superimpose brain regions on top of one another also predicted the differences between species in the connections between those regions. This suggests that movement of brain regions over the course of evolution explain the differences previously observed in brain connectivity.

But there was one notable exception, namely a bundle of fibers with a key role in language called the arcuate fasciculus. This structure follows a slightly different route through the brain in humans compared to chimpanzees and macaques. Eichert et al. show that this difference cannot be explained solely by changes in the positions of brain regions. Instead, the arcuate fasciculus underwent additional changes in its course, which may have contributed to the evolution of language.

The framework developed by Eichert et al. can be used to study evolution in many different species. Interspecies comparisons can provide clues to how brain structure and activity relate to each other and to behavior, and this knowledge could ultimately help to understand and treat brain disorders.

The temporal lobe is a morphological adaptation of the brain that is unique to primates (Bryant and Preuss, 2018). Its origins likely include expansion of higher-order visual areas to accompany the primate reliance on vision (Allman, 1982). Temporal association cortex contains areas devoted to higher-level visual processing and social information processing (Rushworth et al., 2013; Sallet et al., 2011) that, in turn, rely strongly on visual information in primates (Perrett et al., 1992). The expanded temporal cortex in apes and humans contains several multimodal areas and areas associated with semantics and language (Dronkers et al., 2004; Hickok and Poeppel, 2007; Price, 2000). As such, understanding the evolution of temporal cortex across the primate order is a vital step to understanding primate behavioral adaptations.

Two lines of evidence are often brought to bear on differences in temporal lobe organization across humans and other primates. The first line emphasizes selective local expansions of temporal cortex and subsequent relocation of areas. Morphologically, great apes possess an extra sulcus in the temporal cortex, suggesting at the very least expansion of this part of cortex. Mars et al. (2013) reported a region in the middle part of the superior temporal sulcus of the macaque that shares anatomical features of the human temporo-parietal junction area located at the caudal end of the temporal cortex, suggesting a major relocation of this area. In a similar vein, Patel et al. (2019) suggest that expansion of the temporo-parietal junction and superior temporal sulcus gave rise to a modified ventral visual processing stream to support increased social abilities in humans. The second line of evidence emphasizes changes in the connectivity of the temporal lobe. Rilling et al. (2008) first suggested dramatic expansion of the arcuate fasciculus temporal cortex projections in the human, but more recent studies also emphasize increased projections of the middle longitudinal and inferior fronto-occipital fasciculi and their role in language-related processes in the human (Catani and Bambini, 2014; Makris et al., 2013; Makris and Pandya, 2009; Saur et al., 2008).

These different schools place different emphasis on what happened to temporal cortex across different primate lineages. Their results, however, should be interpreted in relation to one another as species differences in brain organization can come in many forms that can interact in unpredictable ways (Krubitzer and Kaas, 2005; Mars et al., 2018a; Mars et al., 2017). Dissociating such different types of species differences is challenging (Figure 1A,B). For instance, given an ancestral or reference state, local expansions of the cortical sheet can lead to the relocation of homologous areas between two species. As a case in point, human MT+ complex is located much more ventrally in posterior temporal cortex than its macaque homolog (Huk et al., 2002). Such cortical relocations also affect the location of connections of these areas, but this situation is distinct from the scenario in which a tract extends into new cortical territory.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

These two scenarios are illustrated in Figure 1B. The red area in the top panel has expanded, leading to a relocation of the blue area with respect to the purple and yellow area. The connections of the areas do not change in this scenario, resulting in a relocation of the connections of the blue area. In the bottom panel, a yellow area’s tract terminations have invaded the neighboring purple territory, but this change is independent from cortical expansion. Thus, in both cases connections are located in a different place from those in the reference state, but the causes are different.

In this study we investigate to which extent species differences in temporal lobe organization are due to cortical relocation and tract extension. To be able to do this, we propose a framework to test among different forms of cortical reorganization by registering brains together into a single shared coordinate system (Figure 1C,D). Such an approach allows us to place different brains into a common space based on one feature and then compare the results to registration based on another feature. This ‘common space’ concept proved feasible in a previous study testing whether the extension of the human arcuate fasciculus (AF) compared with the macaque AF could be accounted for by differential cortical expansion between the two brains (Eichert et al., 2019). In the present study, we generalize this approach to develop a cross-species registration based on a multimodal surface matching algorithm (MSM, Robinson et al., 2018; Robinson et al., 2013; Robinson et al., 2014) to derive a cortical registration between different species.

We based our registration framework on whole brain neuroimaging data of macaque, chimpanzee and human brains. Neuroimaging allows one to acquire high-resolution data from the same brains using different modalities within a short time. The digital nature of the data allows easy manipulation, making it ideal for the present purposes (Le et al., 1985; Grannell and Mansfield, 1975; Lauterbur, 1973; Le Bihan et al., 1986; Thiebaut de Schotten et al., 2019). As primary modality we use surface maps derived from the cortical ribbon of T1- and T2-weighted scans, which have been shown to correlate well with cortical myelinization and which are available for all three species (Glasser et al., 2014; Glasser and Van Essen, 2011). Such ‘myelin maps’ can be used to identify homologous areas across brains and species, such as primary sensory and motor cortex, which is high in myelin, and association cortex, which is low in myelin (Glasser et al., 2014; Large et al., 2016). As second modality, we use diffusion MRI tractography to reconstruct long range white matter fibers of the temporal and parietal lobes to establish its connections (Bryant et al., 2019; Mars et al., 2018c).

Given data from these two modalities, we developed an approach to reveal different types of cortical reorganization. We argue this approach is particularly suitable to study the temporal lobe, as it has well described myelin markers and cortical connections (Glasser et al., 2014; Large et al., 2016; Mars et al., 2013; Ruschel et al., 2014). First, we register the cortical surfaces of the different species to one another based on myelin maps (Figure 1C). This cortical alignment uses the distinction of primary and higher order areas in myelin maps as anchor points across all three species. Next, we apply this registration to overlay homologous parts of the cortex and to calculate the underlying distortions of the cortical sheet. This registration field effectively models areal expansion or contraction underlying cortical relocation of homologous areas. We then apply this registration to the cortical projection maps of temporal and inferior parietal lobe white matter tracts to assess how well the myelin-based registration can predict changes in tract projection patterns across species (Figure 1D). A good prediction, i.e. a high overlap of the tract maps, indicates that cortical expansion and relocation of targets zones alone can predict tact projections (Figure 1D, top), a poor prediction indicates that the tract is reaching new cortical territory (Figure 1D, bottom).

Here, we distinguish different scenarios of cortical evolution for a set of temporal and parietal white matter tracts. By applying a cross-species registration we can infer if only cortical relocation was affecting a tract’s connectivity profile or if a tract is reaching into new cortical territory. A deeper understanding of species differences in brain reorganization is essential for our understanding how evolutionary specializations of the temporal lobe underlie uniquely human cognitive functions.

We set out to investigate different types of cortical reorganization affecting the temporal lobe across macaque, chimpanzee, and human brains. First, we investigated cortical relocation of brain areas by registering myelin maps of the cortical surface to one another and derived the local distortions required. Second, we used the resulting mesh deformations to transform maps of cortical projections of major white matter tracts that terminate in temporal and inferior parietal lobe. This allowed us to assess how well the myelin registration predicts actual projection maps across species or whether it cannot capture them, providing an index of tract extensions in the human brain.

Myelin registration

We developed a surface registration between species based on myelin maps using multimodal surface matching (MSM, Robinson et al., 2018). Figure 2 shows the final results of chimpanzee-to-human, macaque-to-chimpanzee, and macaque-to-human brain registrations. The cross-species registration aligns the myelin maps well, with the predicted human maps showing most of the distinctive features of the actual human myelin map (Figure 2, top row). Posterior areas such as V1 are well aligned, with the highest myelin evident on the medial part of the occipital cortex, having relocated quite substantially from a more lateral orientation in the macaque. The prominent myelin hot spot in the location of the MT+ complex is also noticeable. Areas where the myelin maps showed fewer distinctive features to guide the registration, such as in the prefrontal cortex, showed some differentiation between the predicted and actual human maps. Spatial correlation maps of the human myelin maps and the predicted myelin maps as well as the deformation fields underlying the registrations are provided in Appendix 2—figure 1.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Tract maps

We constructed the cortical projection maps of the following tracts in all three species: Middle longitudinal fasciculus (MDLF), inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF), the third branch of the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF3), the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFO), and the arcuate fasciculus (AF) (Figure 3A,C,E). The human and macaque tract maps resemble those obtained in previous studies (Mars et al., 2018c; Schmahmann and Pandya, 2009) and the chimpanzee SLF3 and AF are similar to previous reports (Hecht et al., 2015; Rilling et al., 2008). The other chimpanzee tracts are reported here for the first time, apart from a previous exploratory study (Mars et al., 2019).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

We applied the myelin-based surface registration to assess whether the cortical relocation demonstrated in the myelin registration above fully explains the changes in tracts. Figure 3 shows actual and predicted tract maps. For visual assessment, a thresholded overlay of actual human and predicted tract maps is shown in Figure 4A. As described above, we focus on a description of temporo-parietal cortex given the multiple competing theories of its reorganization in different primate lineages.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

We assessed the success of the myelin registration in predicting the tract projections in a number of ways. First, weighted correlation maps provide a visualization of the local quality of the prediction (Figure 4B,C). A high value means that the myelin registration alone is sufficient to predict a tract’s projection in this part of the brain. A low correlation value indicates that reorganization of a tract’s connectivity pattern took place in addition to cortical relocation modelled by the myelin registration. Second, the Dice coefficient of similarity provides a more general measure of similarity between the predicted and actual tract maps, where a Dice coefficient of ‘1’ indicates perfect overlap and thus no tract extension into areas other than would be predicted by cortical relocation assessed using the myelin map registration. Finally, we calculated a ‘tract extension ratio’ that indicates how much of the actual human tract projections extends into parts of the surface not predicted, where a value of >1 indicates a tract extension into novel territory. Both the Dice coefficients and tract extension ratios were computed for thresholded tract maps defined by the human tract map covering 40% of the brain’s surface, but the resulting pattern of values is robust across a range of thresholds (see Appendix 3—figure 2).

In general, it can be observed that the myelin-based registration can predict the tract maps well in both hemispheres, with the notable exception of AF and to a lesser extent ILF and SLF3 (Figure 4). AF in particular shows the lowest Dice coefficient and the highest extension ratio (Figure 5A,B), indicating that this tract’s differential projections in the human brain are not merely due to relocation of areas. The maps for macaque and chimpanzee are overall predicted to a similar degree, as can be seen in the overlay and correlation maps, with the exception of AF (Figure 4). The effect for AF is captured in the Dice coefficients and tract extension measures (Figure 5A,B).

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5—source data 1

Numerical data underlying the connectivity fingerprint shown in Figure 5C.

The values are organized as data array that stores the individual tract map intensities. The dimensions of the array are 3 × 1 × 7 × 2 × 20 for n_species, n_hemispheres (only left hemisphere), n_tracts, n_vertices, n_subjects.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/53232/elife-53232-fig5-data1-v2.mat

Download elife-53232-fig5-data1-v2.mat

A two-way statistical analysis was performed in both hemispheres to assess the effect of species and tract on the extension ratios. In the left hemisphere, there was no significant main effect of species (F(1, 179)=1.38, p=0.47), but a highly significant main effect of tract (F(4, 792)=565.00, p<0.001) and a highly significant interaction effect of species and tract (F(4, 792)=207.73, p<0.001). In the right hemisphere, we found a significant main effect of species (F(1, 179)=16.76, p<0.001) as well as a highly significant effect of tract (F(4, 792)=261.94, p<0.001) and a highly significant interaction effect (F(4, 792)=225.70, p<0.001). We will discuss the various tracts in more detail below.

The myelin-based registration results in good prediction for tract projections in the temporo-parietal cortex. The actual human tract terminations of MDLF span the superior temporal gyrus and reach the inferior parietal cortex (Figure 4A). In the macaque and chimpanzee, the actual MDLF terminates in superior temporal gyrus but reaches only to a small part of the inferior parietal cortex. When applying the myelin-based registration, macaque and chimpanzee MDLF are both predicted to reach a comparable portion of the human temporal lobe and parts of both angular and supramarginal gyri of the inferior parietal lobe (Makris et al., 2013). This overlap is captured in the weighted correlation maps, which have high values in the temporal lobe (Figure 4B,C). The Dice coefficients for the chimpanzee and macaque MDLF are high and the extension ratio is close to one indicating no tract extension in addition to cortical expansion (Figure 5A,B).

A similar observation can be made for the posterior terminations of SLF3 and IFO. The myelin-based registration can predict the parietal cortical projections to a large degree. The predicted cortical terminations of the tract show a strong overlap with the actual human tract terminations. In line with the overlay maps and the weighted correlation maps, the Dice coefficients are relatively high. Taken together, this suggests that expansion and relocation of brain areas are largely sufficient to model the posterior cortical terminations of SLF3 and IFO, while extension of the tract’s connectivity pattern plays a minor role in explaining the species differences.

Predicted ILF terminations show that the expected occipito-temporal connection can be modelled well (Catani and Thiebaut de Schotten, 2008). The extension ratio for ILF is elevated indicating that there is some remaining tract extension that has not been modelled by cortical relocation. This is also reflected in the tract overlay (Figure 4A), which shows that human ILF has more extended posterior projections than predicted by the myelin registration. Thus, although the overall architecture of the tracts is well predicted, this tract seems to have extended into new cortical territory in the human lineage.

The clearest case of a tract extension in the human brain was presented by AF. Human AF reaches anteriorly to inferior and dorsal frontal areas. The posterior projections of human AF reach into middle and inferior temporal cortex. The chimpanzee posterior terminations are in inferior parietal lobe and superior temporal cortex and in the macaque, the temporal projections reach superior temporal areas. For AF, the myelin-based registration does not provide a good prediction of the tract map across species, especially for the macaque. The correlation map for the chimpanzee shows low correlation along the temporal lobe and for the macaque, correlation values in temporal lobe are extremely low. AF has the lowest Dice coefficient and the extension ratio is high, especially in the macaque, which is in line with overlay and correlation maps. The ‘failure’ of the myelin registration in the temporal lobe indicates that extension and relocation of cortical areas is not sufficient to explain the posterior tract projections of AF, but that the tract extended into new cortical territory in the temporal lobe.

The goal of this study was to study brain specializations of the temporal lobe across multiple primate species in the context of two forms of cortical reorganization: cortical relocation due to local expansions and extensions of tracts into new cortical territory (Figure 1). For this reason, we developed a cross-species surface registration method based on cortical myelin content, which gives us an index of how cortical areas have relocated during evolution. In a subsequent step, we tested if cortical relocation can predict the connectivity patterns of a set of tracts across species. We showed that cortical expansion and resulting relocation of brain areas alone provide a good prediction of several tracts’ terminations in posterior temporal and parietal cortex. In the case of AF in particular, we showed that an additional change in brain architecture was extension of the tract into new cortical areas independent of cortical expansion and resulting relocation.

As pointed out in the introduction, different lines of evidence on temporal reorganization across primate species have emphasized either the expansion and subsequent relocation of brain areas or changes in temporal lobe connectivity. Both approaches are valuable and we here demonstrate that both are applicable to different parts of the temporal lobe. Previous work has suggested expansion and relocation of areas in posterior temporal cortex and adjacent parietal cortex (Mars et al., 2013; Patel et al., 2019), which is consistent with the ventral location of MT+ complex in humans compared to other primates. Similar reorganizations have been suggested by Haak et al. (2018), who proposed modifications of visual-temporal pathways in the human. These major relocations were captured by our myelin registration and demonstrated to predict certain features of white matter tracts, such as the posterior projections of MDLF.

The aim of our research is not to find the ‘best’ species registration, but to shed light on brain evolution by studying where registrations based on different modalities disagree. Many aspects of brain architecture can be modified during the course evolution and each individual aspect would provide us with a unique registration. The present study represents only one example of how cortical specializations can be studied by comparing cross-species registrations of different modalities. Testing the effect of a myelin registration on connectivity is not meant to imply pre-eminence of myelin over connectivity. In fact, the reversed approach, i.e. to derive a registration based on individual tract maps and then test their differential effect on transformed myelin maps, would be highly informative. We chose myelin here as the primary feature, because we wanted to test the specific hypothesis that some tracts expanded while others simply followed relocation of areas across the cortex. Thus, we used a measure that could index the relocation (myelin) and test it on our measure of interest (the tracts).

Separate from cortical relocation, changes in connectivity between humans and other species have been described for a variety of association tracts, including the temporal projections of AF into middle temporal gyrus (Eichert et al., 2019; Rilling et al., 2008), the frontal projections of SLF3 (Hecht et al., 2015), and expansion of the ventral route consisting of MDLF and IFO (Forkel et al., 2014; Makris et al., 2013; Makris et al., 2009). Both of these latter tracts have been suggested to play a role in language functions in the human brain (Catani and Bambini, 2014; Hagoort, 2016; Makris et al., 2009; Makris and Pandya, 2009; Saur et al., 2008).

In the case of MDLF, the human tract projections can be predicted well by the cortical relocation model. This indicates that the pattern of cortical terminations changed according to the general expansion and relocation of brain areas, without additional extension into new regions of the brain. For other tracts reaching to temporo-parietal areas, such as ILF, IFO and SLF3, the posterior tract projections can also be modelled well, despite the large distortions of target areas within the cortical sheet. These tracts seem to follow the evolutionary scenario described in the upper row in Figure 1B,D, where a tract’s extension in the human brain can be explained by relocation of areas along the cortical sheet. This does not necessarily mean that the tracts have not been recruited for new functions, but the type of change is different from that of tracts such as AF.

AF showed the lowest consistency across species when applying the myelin-based registration. Dice ratio and extension ratio reflect the increased tract termination especially into the temporal lobes, which can be observed in the tract maps. This points to further evolutionary adaptations that specifically affected the connectivity pattern of AF independent of cortical relocation, the scenario described in the bottom figure in Figure 1B,D. Our result is consistent with previous accounts in the literature (Ardesch et al., 2019; Eichert et al., 2019; Rilling et al., 2008), but the approach described here enabled us to formally test this hypothesis in the wider context of cortical reorganization across three primate species and to quantify the species differences. Importantly, extension of a tract into new cortical territories alters the unique connectivity fingerprint of the innervated areas, which profoundly changes the computational capabilities that area supports (Mars et al., 2018b). Being able to dissociate different modifications of brain architecture can inform us about how temporal lobe specializations link to uniquely human higher cognition (Qi et al., 2019; Roelofs, 2014; Schomers et al., 2017).

Apart from modifications of AF, we also noted some minor extensions of ILF into temporo-parietal cortex. ILF’s extension in the human brain is consistent with reports that that showed a split of this tract into multiple subtracts due to the expansion of parts of the temporal cortex, including the fusiform gyrus (Latini et al., 2017; Roumazeilles et al., 2019). This extensions could be related to the increase of cortical territory related to processing social information, such as social networks and faces (Noonan et al., 2018; Sallet et al., 2011). Previously, it has been shown that parietal SLF3 projections are most prominent in the human brain, which has been linked to our unique capacity of social learning (Hecht et al., 2013). We show that species differences in the posterior projections of SLF3 can be mostly explained by local expansion of the posterior temporal and parietal cortex. Similarly, we show that cortical expansion can model the terminations of MDLF, a tract, which has been linked to visuospatial and integrative audiovisual function (Makris et al., 2013). Our results thus suggest that SLF3 and MDLF didn’t undergo additional evolutionary modifications that affected their posterior terminations.

The MSM framework we adopted is ideally suited to work with multimodal descriptors of the cerebral cortex. It has become a vital tool for human surface registration (Abdollahi et al., 2014; Garcia et al., 2018; Glasser et al., 2016) and here we demonstrated its utility for cross-species research. With the presented surface matching method, we showed that a registration based on T1w/T2w MRI data can match critical landmarks across species. We have referred to these maps as ‘myelin maps’ in accordance with other studies in the literature (Glasser et al., 2014; Large et al., 2016) but it should be noted that this is a heuristic. T1w/T2w maps are sensitive to other features than myelin and other sequences are sensitive to aspects of cortical myelin (Lutti et al., 2014). The crucial point is that the maps we employed here are similar across species, allowing us to compare like with like (Glasser et al., 2014). Projecting data of different modalities to a surface representation is a useful tool for comparative neuroscience. It allows us to visualize the different modalities within the same cortical sheet and to compare topologies on this 2D surface, which opens a wide array of mathematical tools. A similar approach has been taken to investigate the relationship between gene expression and myelin content of the cortex (Burt et al., 2018) and gradients of change across multiple modalities of brain organization (Blazquez Freches et al., 2020; Huntenburg et al., 2018).

The presented approach can be flexibly modified to include a variety of cortical features, which can be compared across species. Myelin does not provide high contrast in the large human frontal cortex and, as such, it is difficult to provide a good registration in frontal areas. Furthermore, the effects we report can only be reliably interpreted within the spatial resolution of brain areas. More fine scale species differences and homology assignments are not possible with the data shown here. However, the current method can be generalized to any modality of cortical organization, so future studies can incorporate modalities that have greater contrast in this part of the brain such as neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) measures (Zhang et al., 2012) and resting state fMRI networks (Vincent et al., 2007).

In sum, here we present a framework for analyzing structural reorganization of the temporo-parietal cortex across different primate brains. We dissociated cortical relocation of areas due to local expansion and modifications of white matter tract connectivity. Future work will expand this approach not only to different modalities, but also to a much wider range of species, which is now becoming increasingly possible due to the availability of multi-species datasets (Heuer et al., 2019; Milham et al., 2018). This provides a crucial step towards the understanding of phylogenetic diversity across the primate brain.

This study used previously published datasets and availability of source data for the different datasets is provided in an overview table in the main manuscript ('Data Availability Overview'). The anonymised human MRI dataset that was generated for the present study is available via OpenNeuro under the accession code ds002634 (version 1.0.1). Result scene files are openly available from the Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging's GitLab at https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/neichert/project_MSM (copy archived at https://github.com/elifesciences-publications/project_msm). Group-level myelin-maps and tract surface maps of the three species are openly accessible as part of the result scene files. Numerical data underlying Figure 5 and Appendix 3—figure 2 are provided as source data with the article. All further derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

1. 1. Eichert N
   2. Mars RB
   3. Watkins KE

   (2020) OpenNeuro

   Project_larynx.

   https://doi.org/10.18112/openneuro.ds002634.v1.0.1

1. 1. Abdollahi RO
   2. Kolster H
   3. Glasser MF
   4. Robinson EC
   5. Coalson TS
   6. Dierker D
   7. Jenkinson M
   8. Van Essen DC
   9. Orban GA

   (2014) Correspondences between retinotopic areas and myelin maps in human visual cortex

   NeuroImage 99:509–524.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.042

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. Book

   1. Allman J

   (1982) Reconstructing the Evolution of the Brain in Primates Through the Use of Comparative Neurophysiological and Neuroanatomical DataPrimate Brain Evolution

   Boston, MA: Springer US.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4148-2_2

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Andersson JL
   2. Skare S
   3. Ashburner J

   (2003) How to correct susceptibility distortions in spin-echo echo-planar images: application to diffusion tensor imaging

   NeuroImage 20:870–888.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00336-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. Report

   1. Andersson JLR
   2. Jenkinson M
   3. Smith SM

   (2007) Non-Linear Optimisation

   FMRIB technial eport TR07JA1.

   https://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/datasets/techrep/tr07ja1/tr07ja1.pdf

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Andersson JLR
   2. Sotiropoulos SN

   (2016) An integrated approach to correction for off-resonance effects and subject movement in diffusion MR imaging

   NeuroImage 125:1063–1078.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.019

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Ardesch DJ
   2. Scholtens LH
   3. Li L
   4. Preuss TM
   5. Rilling JK
   6. van den Heuvel MP

   (2019) Evolutionary expansion of connectivity between multimodal association Areas in the human brain compared with chimpanzees

   PNAS 116:7101–7106.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818512116

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Basser PJ
   2. Pajevic S
   3. Pierpaoli C
   4. Duda J
   5. Aldroubi A

   (2000) In vivo fiber tractography using DT-MRI data

   Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 44:625–632.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2594(200010)44:4<625::AID-MRM17>3.0.CO;2-O

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Behrens TE
   2. Woolrich MW
   3. Jenkinson M
   4. Johansen-Berg H
   5. Nunes RG
   6. Clare S
   7. Matthews PM
   8. Brady JM
   9. Smith SM

   (2003) Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion-weighted MR imaging

   Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 50:1077–1088.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.10609

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Behrens TE
   2. Berg HJ
   3. Jbabdi S
   4. Rushworth MF
   5. Woolrich MW

   (2007) Probabilistic diffusion tractography with multiple fibre orientations: what can we gain?

   NeuroImage 34:144–155.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.018

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Blazquez Freches G
    2. Haak KV
    3. Bryant KL
    4. Schurz M
    5. Beckmann CF
    6. Mars RB

    (2020) Principles of temporal association cortex organisation as revealed by connectivity gradients

    Brain Structure and Function 97:02047.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-020-02047-0

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bridge H
    2. Bell AH
    3. Ainsworth M
    4. Sallet J
    5. Premereur E
    6. Ahmed B
    7. Mitchell AS
    8. Schüffelgen U
    9. Buckley M
    10. Tendler BC
    11. Miller KL
    12. Mars RB
    13. Parker AJ
    14. Krug K

    (2019) Preserved extrastriate visual network in a monkey with substantial, naturally occurring damage to primary visual cortex

    eLife 8:e42325.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42325

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. Conference

    1. Bryant KL
    2. Li L
    3. Mars RB

    (2018)

    A white matter atlas of the chimpanzee brain and quantitative comparison with human and macaque

    Society for Neuroscience Conference San Diego, CA, USA.

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bryant KL
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Li L
    4. Jae-Cheol Bae J
    5. Jacquez NJ
    6. Alarcón L
    7. Fields A
    8. Preuss TM

    (2019) Organization of extrastriate and temporal cortex in chimpanzees compared to humans and macaques

    Cortex 118:223–243.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.02.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. Book

    1. Bryant KL
    2. Preuss TM

    (2018) A Comparative Perspective on the Human Temporal Lobe

    In: Bruner E, Ogihara N, Tanabe H, editors. Digital Endocasts. Tokyo: Springer. pp. 239–258.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56582-6_16

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Burt JB
    2. Demirtaş M
    3. Eckner WJ
    4. Navejar NM
    5. Ji JL
    6. Martin WJ
    7. Bernacchia A
    8. Anticevic A
    9. Murray JD

    (2018) Hierarchy of transcriptomic specialization across human cortex captured by structural neuroimaging topography

    Nature Neuroscience 21:1251–1259.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0195-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Catani M
    2. Bambini V

    (2014) A model for social communication and language evolution and development (SCALED)

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 28:165–171.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Catani M
    2. Thiebaut de Schotten M

    (2008) A diffusion tensor imaging tractography atlas for virtual in vivo dissections

    Cortex 44:1105–1132.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2008.05.004

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chen X
    2. Errangi B
    3. Li L
    4. Glasser MF
    5. Westlye LT
    6. Fjell AM
    7. Walhovd KB
    8. Hu X
    9. Herndon JG
    10. Preuss TM
    11. Rilling JK

    (2013) Brain aging in humans, chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes), and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): magnetic resonance imaging studies of macro- and microstructural changes

    Neurobiology of Aging 34:2248–2260.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.03.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. de Crespigny AJ
    2. D'Arceuil HE
    3. Maynard KI
    4. He J
    5. McAuliffe D
    6. Norbash A
    7. Sehgal PK
    8. Hamberg L
    9. Hunter G
    10. Budzik RF
    11. Putman CM
    12. Gonzalez RG

    (2005) Acute studies of a new primate model of reversible middle cerebral artery occlusion

    Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 14:80–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2004.12.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. de Groot M
    2. Vernooij MW
    3. Klein S
    4. Ikram MA
    5. Vos FM
    6. Smith SM
    7. Niessen WJ
    8. Andersson JL

    (2013) Improving alignment in Tract-based spatial statistics: evaluation and optimization of image registration

    NeuroImage 76:400–411.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dice LR

    (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species

    Ecology 26:297–302.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1932409

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Donahue CJ
    2. Sotiropoulos SN
    3. Jbabdi S
    4. Hernandez-Fernandez M
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Dyrby TB
    7. Coalson T
    8. Kennedy H
    9. Knoblauch K
    10. Van Essen DC
    11. Glasser MF

    (2016) Using Diffusion Tractography to Predict Cortical Connection Strength and Distance: A Quantitative Comparison with Tracers in the Monkey

    The Journal of Neuroscience 36:6758–6770.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0493-16.2016

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Donahue CJ
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Preuss TM
    4. Rilling JK
    5. Van Essen DC

    (2018) Quantitative assessment of prefrontal cortex in humans relative to nonhuman primates

    PNAS 115:E5183–E5192.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721653115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Dronkers NF
    2. Wilkins DP
    3. Van Valin RD
    4. Redfern BB
    5. Jaeger JJ

    (2004) Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension

    Cognition 92:145–177.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Dum RP
    2. Strick PL

    (1991) The origin of corticospinal projections from the premotor areas in the frontal lobe

    The Journal of Neuroscience 11:667–689.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.11-03-00667.1991

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Dyrby TB
    2. Baaré WFC
    3. Alexander DC
    4. Jelsing J
    5. Garde E
    6. Søgaard LV

    (2011) An ex vivo imaging pipeline for producing high-quality and high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging datasets

    Human Brain Mapping 32:544–563.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21043

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. D’Arceuil HE
    2. Westmoreland S
    3. de Crespigny AJ

    (2007) An approach to high resolution diffusion tensor imaging in fixed primate brain

    NeuroImage 35:553–565.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.028

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Eichert N
    2. Verhagen L
    3. Folloni D
    4. Jbabdi S
    5. Khrapitchev AA
    6. Sibson NR
    7. Mantini D
    8. Sallet J
    9. Mars RB

    (2019) What is special about the human arcuate fasciculus? lateralization, projections, and expansion

    Cortex 118:107–115.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. Software

    1. Eichert N

    (2020) project_msm, version 5d90c981

    GitLab.

    https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/neichert/project_msm
30. 1. Fischl B

    (2012) FreeSurfer

    NeuroImage 62:774–781.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Folloni D
    2. Verhagen L
    3. Mars RB
    4. Fouragnan E
    5. Constans C
    6. Aubry J-F
    7. Rushworth MFS
    8. Sallet J

    (2019) Manipulation of Subcortical and Deep Cortical Activity in the Primate Brain Using Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Stimulation

    Neuron 101:1109–1116.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.019

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Forkel SJ
    2. Thiebaut de Schotten M
    3. Kawadler JM
    4. Dell'Acqua F
    5. Danek A
    6. Catani M

    (2014) The anatomy of fronto-occipital connections from early blunt dissections to contemporary tractography

    Cortex 56:73–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.09.005

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Garcia KE
    2. Robinson EC
    3. Alexopoulos D
    4. Dierker DL
    5. Glasser MF
    6. Coalson TS
    7. Ortinau CM
    8. Rueckert D
    9. Taber LA
    10. Van Essen DC
    11. Rogers CE
    12. Smyser CD
    13. Bayly PV

    (2018) Dynamic patterns of cortical expansion during folding of the preterm human brain

    PNAS 115:3156–3161.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715451115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. Conference

    1. Glasser MF
    2. Preuss TM
    3. Nair G
    4. Rilling JK
    5. Zhang X
    6. Li L
    7. Van Essen DC

    (2012)

    Improved cortical myelin maps in humans, chimpanzees and macaques allow identification of putative areal homologies

    Society for Neuroscience.

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

    (2013) The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the human connectome project

    NeuroImage 80:105–124.

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

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Goyal MS
    3. Preuss TM
    4. Raichle ME
    5. Van Essen DC

    (2014) Trends and properties of human cerebral cortex: correlations with cortical myelin content

    NeuroImage 93 Pt 2:165–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.060

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 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
38. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Van Essen DC

    (2011) Mapping human cortical Areas in vivo based on myelin content as revealed by T1- and T2-weighted MRI

    Journal of Neuroscience 31:11597–11616.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2180-11.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Grannell PK
    2. Mansfield P

    (1975) Microscopy in vivo by nuclear magnetic resonance

    Physics in Medicine and Biology 20:477–482.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/20/3/011

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Haak KV
    2. Marquand AF
    3. Beckmann CF

    (2018) Connectopic mapping with resting-state fMRI

    NeuroImage 170:83–94.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.075

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Hagoort P

    (2016) MUC (Memory, unification, control): A model on the neurobiology of language beyond single word processing

    Neurobiology of Language 12881364.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00028-6

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hecht EE
    2. Gutman DA
    3. Preuss TM
    4. Sanchez MM
    5. Parr LA
    6. Rilling JK

    (2013) Process versus product in social learning: comparative diffusion tensor imaging of neural systems for action execution-observation matching in macaques, chimpanzees, and humans

    Cerebral Cortex 23:1014–1024.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs097

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Hecht EE
    2. Gutman DA
    3. Bradley BA
    4. Preuss TM
    5. Stout D

    (2015) Virtual dissection and comparative connectivity of the superior longitudinal fasciculus in chimpanzees and humans

    NeuroImage 108:124–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Heuer K
    2. Gulban OF
    3. Bazin P-L
    4. Osoianu A
    5. Valabregue R
    6. Santin M
    7. Herbin M
    8. Toro R

    (2019) Evolution of neocortical folding: A phylogenetic comparative analysis of MRI from 34 primate species

    Cortex 118:275–291.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.04.011

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Hickok G
    2. Poeppel D

    (2007) The cortical organization of speech processing

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8:393–402.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2113

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Huk AC
    2. Dougherty RF
    3. Heeger DJ

    (2002) Retinotopy and functional subdivision of human Areas MT and MST

    The Journal of Neuroscience 22:7195–7205.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-16-07195.2002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Huntenburg JM
    2. Bazin P-L
    3. Margulies DS

    (2018) Large-Scale gradients in human cortical organization

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22:21–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.002

    • Google Scholar
48. Conference

    1. Ishikawa H

    (2014) Higher-order clique reduction without auxiliary variables

    Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1362–1369.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2014.177

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Jbabdi S
    2. Sotiropoulos SN
    3. Savio AM
    4. Graña M
    5. Behrens TE

    (2012) Model-based analysis of multishell diffusion MR data for tractography: how to get over fitting problems

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 68:1846–1855.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.24204

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Jbabdi S
    2. Lehman JF
    3. Haber SN
    4. Behrens TE

    (2013) Human and monkey ventral prefrontal fibers use the same organizational principles to reach their targets: tracing versus tractography

    Journal of Neuroscience 33:3190–3201.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2457-12.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Jbabdi S
    2. Johansen-Berg H

    (2011) Tractography: where do we go from here?

    Brain Connectivity 1:169–183.

    https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2011.0033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Jenkinson M
    2. Beckmann CF
    3. Behrens TE
    4. Woolrich MW
    5. Smith SM

    (2012) FSL

    NeuroImage 62:782–790.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Jones DK

    (2010) Challenges and limitations of quantifying brain connectivity in vivo with diffusion MRI

    Imaging in Medicine 2:341–355.

    https://doi.org/10.2217/iim.10.21

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Krubitzer L
    2. Kaas J

    (2005) The evolution of the neocortex in mammals: how is phenotypic diversity generated?

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15:444–453.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Large I
    2. Bridge H
    3. Ahmed B
    4. Clare S
    5. Kolasinski J
    6. Lam WW
    7. Miller KL
    8. Dyrby TB
    9. Parker AJ
    10. Smith JET
    11. Daubney G
    12. Sallet J
    13. Bell AH
    14. Krug K

    (2016) Individual differences in the alignment of structural and functional markers of the V5/MT complex in primates

    Cerebral Cortex 26:3928–3944.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw180

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Latini F
    2. Mårtensson J
    3. Larsson EM
    4. Fredrikson M
    5. Åhs F
    6. Hjortberg M
    7. Aldskogius H
    8. Ryttlefors M

    (2017) Segmentation of the inferior longitudinal fasciculus in the human brain: a white matter dissection and diffusion tensor tractography study

    Brain Research 1675:102–115.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2017.09.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Lauterbur PC

    (1973) Image formation by induced local interactions: examples employing nuclear magnetic resonance

    Nature 242:190–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/242190a0

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Le BD
    2. Breton E
    3. Le Bihan D
    4. Breton E

    (1985)

    Magerie de diffusion in-vivo par résonance magnétique nucléaire

    Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences 93:1109–1112.

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Le Bihan D
    2. Breton E
    3. Lallemand D
    4. Grenier P
    5. Cabanis E
    6. Laval-Jeantet M

    (1986) MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders

    Radiology 161:401–407.

    https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.161.2.3763909

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Li L
    2. Hu X
    3. Preuss TM
    4. Glasser MF
    5. Damen FW
    6. Qiu Y
    7. Rilling J

    (2013) Mapping putative hubs in human, chimpanzee and rhesus macaque connectomes via diffusion tractography

    NeuroImage 80:462–474.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.024

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Lutti A
    2. Dick F
    3. Sereno MI
    4. Weiskopf N

    (2014) Using high-resolution quantitative mapping of R1 as an index of cortical myelination

    NeuroImage 93:176–188.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.005

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Maier-Hein KH
    2. Neher PF
    3. Houde J-C
    4. Côté M-A
    5. Garyfallidis E
    6. Zhong J
    7. Chamberland M
    8. Yeh F-C
    9. Lin Y-C
    10. Ji Q
    11. Reddick WE
    12. Glass JO
    13. Chen DQ
    14. Feng Y
    15. Gao C
    16. Wu Y
    17. Ma J
    18. He R
    19. Li Q
    20. Westin C-F
    21. Deslauriers-Gauthier S
    22. González JOO
    23. Paquette M
    24. St-Jean S
    25. Girard G
    26. Rheault F
    27. Sidhu J
    28. Tax CMW
    29. Guo F
    30. Mesri HY
    31. Dávid S
    32. Froeling M
    33. Heemskerk AM
    34. Leemans A
    35. Boré A
    36. Pinsard B
    37. Bedetti C
    38. Desrosiers M
    39. Brambati S
    40. Doyon J
    41. Sarica A
    42. Vasta R
    43. Cerasa A
    44. Quattrone A
    45. Yeatman J
    46. Khan AR
    47. Hodges W
    48. Alexander S
    49. Romascano D
    50. Barakovic M
    51. Auría A
    52. Esteban O
    53. Lemkaddem A
    54. Thiran J-P
    55. Cetingul HE
    56. Odry BL
    57. Mailhe B
    58. Nadar MS
    59. Pizzagalli F
    60. Prasad G
    61. Villalon-Reina JE
    62. Galvis J
    63. Thompson PM
    64. Requejo FDS
    65. Laguna PL
    66. Lacerda LM
    67. Barrett R
    68. Dell’Acqua F
    69. Catani M
    70. Petit L
    71. Caruyer E
    72. Daducci A
    73. Dyrby TB
    74. Holland-Letz T
    75. Hilgetag CC
    76. Stieltjes B
    77. Descoteaux M

    (2017) The challenge of mapping the human connectome based on diffusion tractography

    Nature Communications 8:1349.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01285-x

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Makris N
    2. Papadimitriou GM
    3. Kaiser JR
    4. Sorg S
    5. Kennedy DN
    6. Pandya DN

    (2009) Delineation of the middle longitudinal fascicle in humans: a quantitative, in vivo, DT-MRI study

    Cerebral Cortex 19:777–785.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn124

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Makris N
    2. Preti MG
    3. Wassermann D
    4. Rathi Y
    5. Papadimitriou GM
    6. Yergatian C
    7. Dickerson BC
    8. Shenton ME
    9. Kubicki M

    (2013) Human middle longitudinal fascicle: segregation and behavioral-clinical implications of two distinct fiber connections linking temporal pole and superior temporal gyrus with the angular gyrus or superior parietal lobule using multi-tensor tractography

    Brain Imaging and Behavior 7:335–352.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-013-9235-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Makris N
    2. Pandya DN

    (2009) The extreme capsule in humans and rethinking of the language circuitry

    Brain Structure and Function 213:343–358.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-008-0199-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Mars RB
    2. Sallet J
    3. Neubert F-X
    4. Rushworth MFS

    (2013) Connectivity profiles reveal the relationship between brain areas for social cognition in human and monkey temporoparietal cortex

    PNAS 110:10806–10811.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302956110

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Mars RB
    2. Foxley S
    3. Verhagen L
    4. Jbabdi S
    5. Sallet J
    6. Noonan MP
    7. Neubert FX
    8. Andersson JL
    9. Croxson PL
    10. Dunbar RI
    11. Khrapitchev AA
    12. Sibson NR
    13. Miller KL
    14. Rushworth MF

    (2016) The extreme capsule fiber complex in humans and macaque monkeys: a comparative diffusion MRI tractography study

    Brain Structure and Function 221:4059–4071.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-015-1146-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. Book

    1. Mars RB
    2. Passingham RE
    3. Neubert FX
    4. Verhagen L
    5. Sallet J

    (2017) Evolutionary specializations of the human association cortex

    In: Kaas H. J, editors. Evolution of Nervous Systems. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 1–37.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804042-3.00118-4

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Mars RB
    2. Eichert N
    3. Jbabdi S
    4. Verhagen L
    5. Rushworth MFS

    (2018a) Connectivity and the search for specializations in the language-capable brain

    Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 21:19–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.11.001

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Mars RB
    2. Passingham RE
    3. Jbabdi S

    (2018b) Connectivity fingerprints: from areal descriptions to abstract spaces

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22:1026–1037.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.08.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Mars RB
    2. Sotiropoulos SN
    3. Passingham RE
    4. Sallet J
    5. Verhagen L
    6. Khrapitchev AA
    7. Sibson N
    8. Jbabdi S

    (2018c) Whole brain comparative anatomy using connectivity blueprints

    eLife 7:e35237.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35237

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Mars RB
    2. O'Muircheartaigh J
    3. Folloni D
    4. Li L
    5. Glasser MF
    6. Jbabdi S
    7. Bryant KL

    (2019) Concurrent analysis of white matter bundles and grey matter networks in the chimpanzee

    Brain Structure and Function 224:1021–1033.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-018-1817-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Milham MP
    2. Ai L
    3. Koo B
    4. Xu T
    5. Amiez C
    6. Balezeau F
    7. Baxter MG
    8. Blezer ELA
    9. Brochier T
    10. Chen A
    11. Croxson PL
    12. Damatac CG
    13. Dehaene S
    14. Everling S
    15. Fair DA
    16. Fleysher L
    17. Freiwald W
    18. Froudist-Walsh S
    19. Griffiths TD
    20. Guedj C
    21. Hadj-Bouziane F
    22. Ben Hamed S
    23. Harel N
    24. Hiba B
    25. Jarraya B
    26. Jung B
    27. Kastner S
    28. Klink PC
    29. Kwok SC
    30. Laland KN
    31. Leopold DA
    32. Lindenfors P
    33. Mars RB
    34. Menon RS
    35. Messinger A
    36. Meunier M
    37. Mok K
    38. Morrison JH
    39. Nacef J
    40. Nagy J
    41. Rios MO
    42. Petkov CI
    43. Pinsk M
    44. Poirier C
    45. Procyk E
    46. Rajimehr R
    47. Reader SM
    48. Roelfsema PR
    49. Rudko DA
    50. Rushworth MFS
    51. Russ BE
    52. Sallet J
    53. Schmid MC
    54. Schwiedrzik CM
    55. Seidlitz J
    56. Sein J
    57. Shmuel A
    58. Sullivan EL
    59. Ungerleider L
    60. Thiele A
    61. Todorov OS
    62. Tsao D
    63. Wang Z
    64. Wilson CRE
    65. Yacoub E
    66. Ye FQ
    67. Zarco W
    68. Zhou YD
    69. Margulies DS
    70. Schroeder CE

    (2018) An open resource for Non-human primate imaging

    Neuron 100:61–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Miller KL
    2. Alfaro-Almagro F
    3. Bangerter NK
    4. Thomas DL
    5. Yacoub E
    6. Xu J
    7. Bartsch AJ
    8. Jbabdi S
    9. Sotiropoulos SN
    10. Andersson JLR
    11. Griffanti L
    12. Douaud G
    13. Okell TW
    14. Weale P
    15. Dragonu I
    16. Garratt S
    17. Hudson S
    18. Collins R
    19. Jenkinson M
    20. Matthews PM
    21. Smith SM

    (2016) Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study

    Nature Neuroscience 19:1523–1536.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4393

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Noonan MP
    2. Mars RB
    3. Sallet J
    4. Dunbar RIM
    5. Fellows LK

    (2018) The structural and functional brain networks that support human social networks

    Behavioural Brain Research 355:12–23.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.019

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Passingham RE
    2. Stephan KE
    3. Kötter R

    (2002) The anatomical basis of functional localization in the cortex

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3:606–616.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn893

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Patel GH
    2. Sestieri C
    3. Corbetta M

    (2019) The evolution of the temporoparietal junction and posterior superior temporal sulcus

    Cortex 118:38–50.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Perrett DI
    2. Hietanen JK
    3. Oram MW
    4. Benson PJ

    (1992) Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 335:23–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1992.0003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Price CJ

    (2000) The anatomy of language: contributions from functional neuroimaging

    Journal of Anatomy 197 Pt 3:335–359.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19730335.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Qi T
    2. Schaadt G
    3. Cafiero R
    4. Brauer J
    5. Skeide MA
    6. Friederici AD

    (2019) The emergence of long-range language network structural covariance and language abilities

    NeuroImage 191:36–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    Foundation for Statistical Computing R. N.d, Vienna, Austria.

    http://www.r-project.org
82. 1. Reveley C
    2. Seth AK
    3. Pierpaoli C
    4. Silva AC
    5. Yu D
    6. Saunders RC
    7. Leopold DA
    8. Ye FQ

    (2015) Superficial white matter fiber systems impede detection of long-range cortical connections in diffusion MR tractography

    PNAS 112:E2820–E2828.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418198112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Rilling JK
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Preuss TM
    4. Ma X
    5. Zhao T
    6. Hu X
    7. Behrens TE

    (2008) The evolution of the arcuate fasciculus revealed with comparative DTI

    Nature Neuroscience 11:426–428.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2072

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. Book

    1. Robinson EC
    2. Jbabdi S
    3. Andersson J
    4. Smith S
    5. Glasser MF
    6. Van Essen DC
    7. Burgess G
    8. Harms MP
    9. Barch DM
    10. Jenkinson M

    (2013) Multimodal surface matching: Fast and generalisable cortical registration using discrete optimisation

    In: Gee J. C, Joshi S, Wells W. M, Pohl K. M, Zöllei L, editors. Information Processing in Medical Imaging. IPMI 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7917. Springer. pp. 475–486.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38868-2_40

    • Google Scholar
85. 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

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Robinson EC
    2. Garcia K
    3. Glasser MF
    4. Chen Z
    5. Coalson TS
    6. Makropoulos A
    7. Bozek J
    8. Wright R
    9. Schuh A
    10. Webster M
    11. Hutter J
    12. Price A
    13. Cordero Grande L
    14. Hughes E
    15. Tusor N
    16. Bayly PV
    17. Van Essen DC
    18. Smith SM
    19. Edwards AD
    20. Hajnal J
    21. Jenkinson M
    22. Glocker B
    23. Rueckert D

    (2018) Multimodal surface matching with higher-order smoothness constraints

    NeuroImage 167:453–465.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Roelofs A

    (2014) A dorsal-pathway account of aphasic language production: the WEAVER++/ARC model

    Cortex 59:33–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.07.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. Conference

    1. Roumazeilles L
    2. Eichert N
    3. Bryant KL
    4. Folloni D
    5. Vijayakumar S
    6. Tendler BC
    7. Reveley C
    8. Verhagen L
    9. Jbabdi S
    10. Dershowitz LB
    11. Foxley S
    12. Guthrie M
    13. Flach E
    14. Miller KL
    15. Mars RB

    (2019)

    Comparative anatomy of the temporal lobe fasciculi in humans, great apes and macaques

    Poster presented at the 2019 Meeting of OHBM in Rome.

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Ruschel M
    2. Knösche TR
    3. Friederici AD
    4. Turner R
    5. Geyer S
    6. Anwander A

    (2014) Connectivity architecture and subdivision of the human inferior parietal cortex revealed by diffusion MRI

    Cerebral Cortex 24:2436–2448.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht098

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Rushworth MF
    2. Mars RB
    3. Sallet J

    (2013) Are there specialized circuits for social cognition and are they unique to humans?

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23:436–442.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Sallet J
    2. Mars RB
    3. Noonan MP
    4. Andersson JL
    5. O'Reilly JX
    6. Jbabdi S
    7. Croxson PL
    8. Jenkinson M
    9. Miller KL
    10. Rushworth MF

    (2011) Social network size affects neural circuits in macaques

    Science 334:697–700.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Saur D
    2. Kreher BW
    3. Schnell S
    4. Kümmerer D
    5. Kellmeyer P
    6. Vry MS
    7. Umarova R
    8. Musso M
    9. Glauche V
    10. Abel S
    11. Huber W
    12. Rijntjes M
    13. Hennig J
    14. Weiller C

    (2008) Ventral and dorsal pathways for language

    PNAS 105:18035–18040.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805234105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. Book

    1. Schmahmann JD
    2. Pandya D

    (2009) Fiber Pathways of the Brain

    New York: Oxford University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195104233.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Schomers MR
    2. Garagnani M
    3. Pulvermüller F

    (2017) Neurocomputational consequences of evolutionary connectivity changes in perisylvian language cortex

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:3045–3055.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2693-16.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Seunarine KK
    2. Alexander DC

    (2013)

    Quantitative Measurement to in Vivo Neuroanatomy

    105–123, Multiple Fibers. Beyond the Diffusion Tensor.Diffusion MRI, Quantitative Measurement to in Vivo Neuroanatomy, Second, Academic Press, 10.1016/B978-0-12-396460-1.00006-8.

    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Smith SM
    2. Jenkinson M
    3. Woolrich MW
    4. Beckmann CF
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Johansen-Berg H
    7. Bannister PR
    8. De Luca M
    9. Drobnjak I
    10. Flitney DE
    11. Niazy RK
    12. Saunders J
    13. Vickers J
    14. Zhang Y
    15. De Stefano N
    16. Brady JM
    17. Matthews PM

    (2004) Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL

    NeuroImage 23 Suppl 1:S208–S219.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Stejskal EO
    2. Tanner JE

    (1965) Spin diffusion measurements: spin echoes in the presence of a time‐dependent field gradient

    The Journal of Chemical Physics 42:288–292.

    https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1695690

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Takemura H
    2. Pestilli F
    3. Weiner KS
    4. Keliris GA
    5. Landi SM
    6. Sliwa J
    7. Ye FQ
    8. Barnett MA
    9. Leopold DA
    10. Freiwald WA
    11. Logothetis NK
    12. Wandell BA

    (2017) Occipital White Matter Tracts in Human and Macaque

    Cerebral Cortex 27:3346–3359.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx070

    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Thiebaut de Schotten M
    2. Croxson PL
    3. Mars RB

    (2019) Large-scale comparative neuroimaging: Where are we and what do we need?

    Cortex 118:188–202.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.11.028

    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Vincent JL
     2. Patel GH
     3. Fox MD
     4. Snyder AZ
     5. Baker JT
     6. Van Essen DC
     7. Zempel JM
     8. Snyder LH
     9. Corbetta M
     10. Raichle ME

     (2007) Intrinsic functional architecture in the anaesthetized monkey brain

     Nature 447:83–86.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05758

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Winkler AM
     2. Ridgway GR
     3. Webster MA
     4. Smith SM
     5. Nichols TE

     (2014) Permutation inference for the general linear model

     NeuroImage 92:381–397.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.060

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Zhang H
     2. Schneider T
     3. Wheeler-Kingshott CA
     4. Alexander DC

     (2012) NODDI: Practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain

     NeuroImage 61:1000–1016.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.072

     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Nicole Eichert

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

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   nicole.eichert@psy.ox.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7818-5787

2. Emma C Robinson

   Biomedical Engineering Department, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Katherine L Bryant

   Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1045-4543

4. Saad Jbabdi

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

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3234-5639

5. Mark Jenkinson

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

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6043-0166

6. Longchuan Li

   Marcus Autism Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, United States

   Contribution

   Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0559-0754

7. Kristine Krug

   1. Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   2. Institute of Biology, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany
   3. Leibniz-Insitute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   Reviewing editor, eLife

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7119-9350

8. Kate E Watkins

   Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2621-482X

9. Rogier B Mars

   1. Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   2. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Software, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6302-8631

• 4,085

  views

• 458

  downloads

• 72

  citations

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