Understanding brain anatomy requires a multi-scale perspective. Regional variations in cell types and distributions underlie macro-scale patterns, whether they are reflective of functional dynamics, age, or disease states. For over 150 years (von Gudden, 1886), histological analysis of post mortem tissue has helped to reveal the microscopic architecture of the brain. Neuroanatomists observed a distinctive layered organisation of cells within the cortex (Baillarger, 1840), identified differences in the cellular composition (Betz, 1874), and developed principles of cortical organisation, including the definition of cortical types (Meynert, 1867) and areas (Brodmann, 1908; Von Economo and Koskinas, 1925). More recently, digitisation of post mortem tissue has allowed automated characterisation of cytoarchitecture and the definition of borders between areas (Schleicher et al., 1999).

Evidence has been provided that cortical organisation goes beyond a segregation into areas. For example, large-scale gradients that span areas and cytoarchitectonic heterogeneity within a cortical area have been reported (Amunts and Zilles, 2015; Goulas et al., 2018; Wang, 2020). Such progress became feasible through integration of classical techniques with computational methods, supporting more observer-independent evaluation of architectonic principles (Amunts et al., 2020; Paquola et al., 2019; Schiffer et al., 2020; Spitzer et al., 2018). This paves the way for novel investigations of the cellular landscape of the brain.

In vivo neuroimaging offers a complementary window into the structure and function of the brain. The non-invasive nature of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows examination of large-scale, population-level variation, which is more limited in post mortem neuroanatomy. Human brain mapping research has furthermore established standard spaces, notably the MNI152 space for volumetric whole-brain analysis (Fonov et al., 2011b; Fonov et al., 2009; Mazziotta et al., 2001a; Mazziotta et al., 2001b) and ‘fsaverage’ and ‘fs_LR’ for surface-based cortical analyses (Fischl et al., 1999; Van Essen et al., 2012). Despite ongoing advances in attaining higher spatial resolution with higher field strength (Deistung et al., 2013; Holdsworth et al., 2019; Sitek et al., 2019; Trampel et al., 2019; Turner and De Haan, 2017), in vivo MRI researchers remain constrained by limited spatial resolution from making inferences on a cellular level. Establishing the relationship between macro-scale patterns and cellular architecture is crucial to substantiate physiological patterns observed with MRI and for further development of brain-inspired computational models.

BigBrain is a singular 3D volumetric reconstruction of a sliced and cell-body stained post mortem human brain (Amunts et al., 2013). This resource allows computational analysis of the entire organ in relation to cell staining at high resolutions (up to 20 µm). It is specially tailored for neuroimagers, as it is made available in common MRI formats (minc and NifTI), accompanied by cortical surface reconstructions (Lewis et al., 2014), and nonlinearly registered to standard MRI templates (ICBM152 and MNI-ADNI) (Fonov et al., 2011a). Furthermore, recent studies have expanded the resource by offering improved registrations to standard spaces (Lewis et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2019), nuanced intracortical surface models, and laminar approximations (Wagstyl et al., 2018a; Wagstyl et al., 2020) as well as regional segmentations (DeKraker et al., 2019; Xiao et al., 2019). Several studies have already capitalised on this unique resource for integrative histological-neuroimaging analyses, including comparison of cytoarchitectural and functional gradients (Paquola et al., 2019), cross-validation of in vivo defined microstructural gradients in the insula with histological measures (Royer et al., 2020), mapping variations in functional connectivity along the histological axis of the mesiotemporal lobe (Paquola et al., 2020b), fMRI responses of the histologically defined auditory system (Sitek et al., 2019), comparison of cytoarchitectural similarity with MRI-derived estimates of structural connectivity (Wei et al., 2019), and analysis of the cytoarchitectural similarity of large-scale network hubs (Arnatkevičiute et al., 2020).

The present article introduces the BigBrainWarp toolbox. The aim of the toolbox is to facilitate integration of BigBrain with neuroimaging modalities, helping neuroscientists to utilise cytoarchitectural information in conjunction with in vivo imaging. The toolbox is open and includes (1) histological features and pre-transformed maps in BigBrain and imaging spaces, (2) code for performing data transformations, and (3) extensive tutorials. Toolbox functions and tutorials are documented on http://bigbrainwarp.readthedocs.io. Here, we introduce BigBrain to new users and demonstrate the utility of the BigBrainWarp toolbox. In the Materials and methods section, we overview the derivation of cytoarchitectural features from BigBrain and survey recent contributions to BigBrain-MRI integration. These include publication of histological cortical maps, regional segmentations, and registration efforts. Then, we detail the core functions of BigBrainWarp and the current contents of the toolbox. In the Results section, we share three tutorials to illustrate potential applications of BigBrainWarp.

The BigBrainWarp toolbox supports a range of integrative BigBrain–MRI analyses. The following tutorials outline three BigBrain–MRI analyses with unique types of transformations, specifically (1) BigBrain volume to ICBM2009sym, (2) BigBrain surface to fsaverage, and (3) fsaverage to BigBrain surface. Neither the forms nor the motivations are exhaustive but illustrate applications (see Figure 3 for all possible transformations). Code for each tutorial is available in the BigBrainWarp toolbox.

Tutorial 1: BigBrain → ICBM2009sym MNI152 space

Motivation: Despite MRI acquisitions at high and ultra-high fields reaching submillimeter resolutions with ongoing technical advances, certain brain structures and subregions remain difficult to identify (Kulaga-Yoskovitz et al., 2015; Wisse et al., 2017; Yushkevich et al., 2015). For example, there are challenges in reliably defining the subthalamic nucleus (not yet released for BigBrain) or hippocampal Cornu Ammonis subfields (manual segmentation available on BigBrain, https://osf.io/bqus3/; DeKraker et al., 2019). BigBrain-defined labels can be transformed to a standard imaging space for further investigation. Thus, this approach can support exploration of the functional architecture of histologically defined regions of interest.

Approach: (1) Create volumetric label in BigBrain space. (2) Perform nonlinear transformation to ICBM2009sym space using BigBrainWarp. (3) Transform individual resting-state functional MRI data to ICBM2009sym MNI152 space. (4) Sample timeseries from labelled voxels in this standard space.

Example: The mesiotemporal lobe plays important roles in multiple cognitive processes (Moscovitch et al., 2005; Squire et al., 2004; Vos de Wael et al., 2018) and is affected by multiple neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions (Ball et al., 1985; Bernhardt et al., 2016; Bernhardt et al., 2015; Calabresi et al., 2013). Increasing research suggests that this region shows complex subregional structural and functional organisation. Here, we illustrate how we can track resting-state functional connectivity changes along the latero-medial axis of the mesiotemporal lobe, from parahippocampal isocortex toward hippocampal allocortex, hereafter referred to as the iso-to-allocortical axis. For further details and additional motivation, please see Paquola et al., 2020a: (1) Our volumetric label represents the iso-to-allocortical axis of the mesiotemporal lobe. We constructed this axis by joining the isocortical (Lewis et al., 2014) and hippocampal (DeKraker et al., 2019) surface meshes in BigBrain histological space, creating the mesiotemporal confluence (available in BigBrainWarp, Figure 1G). Then, we calculated the distance of each vertex in the new surface model to the intersection of isocortical and hippocampal meshes, defining the iso-to-allocortical axis (Figure 4A). Next, we filled voxels in cortical ribbon according to the position of the iso-to-allocortical axis, producing a volumetric representation of the iso-to-allocortical axis in BigBrain histological space (Figure 4Bii). (2) We transform the volume from the BigBrain histological space to ICBM2009sym (Figure 4Biii).

bigbrainwarp --in_space bigbrain --out_space icbm --wd/project/ --desc confluence_axis --in_vol tpl-bigbrain_desc-confluence_axis.nii --interp linear

(3) aboveTo explore the functional architecture of this histologically defined axis, we obtained multi-modal MRI in 50 healthy adults from the MICs dataset (Royer et al., 2021). For each participant, we constructed an individualised transformation from ICBM2009sym to their native functional space, based on the inverse of the within-subject co-registration to the native T1-weighted imaging concatenated to the nonlinear between-subject registration to ICBM2009sym. (4) For each participant, BOLD timeseries were extracted from non-zero voxels of the transformed iso-to-allocortical axis, which are classified as grey matter (>50% probability) and collated in a 3D matrix (voxel × time × subject). Then, we sorted and analysed this matrix using the voxel-wise values of the iso-to-allocortical axis. For each subject, we averaged voxel-wise BOLD timeseries within 100 bins of the iso-to-allocortical axis and within 1000 isocortical parcels (Schaefer et al., 2018) and estimated the resting state functional connectivity of each iso-to-allocortical bin with each isocortical parcel. Then, we averaged resting state functional connectivity measures across subjects and performed product-moment correlations between the strength of resting state functional connectivity and bin position along the iso-to-allocortical axis. This analysis illustrates how functional connectivity varies along the histological axis for different areas of the isocortex (Figure 4C).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Tutorial 2: BigBrain → fsaverage

Motivation: In vivo brain imaging reveals regionally variable effects of many demographic and clinical factors on brain structure and function. For example, prior studies of lifespan processes presented spatially variable patterns of cortical atrophy with advancing age, together with increased deposition of pathological aggregates, such as amyloid beta (Aβ) (Bilgel et al., 2018; Jansen et al., 2015; Knopman et al., 2018; Rodrigue et al., 2012; Sperling et al., 2011). Histological data provides a window into the cytoarchitectural features that align with imaging-derived phenotypes and that, in this instance, may predispose an area to specific aging-related processes. Essentially, we can evaluate whether regions with a certain cytoarchitecture overlap with those showing more marked aging effects. Furthermore, large-scale cytoarchitectural gradients can provide a unified framework to describe topographies, simplifying and standardising the reporting of imaging-derived phenotypes.

Approach: (1) Construct histological gradients using BigBrain and (2) transform to standard neuroimaging surface template using BigBrainWarp. (3) Plot the imaging-derived map against each histological gradient to understand the algebraic form of the relationship. Note, if imaging features are volumetric, one may use registration fusion to resample the data from ICBM2009sym to fsaverage (Wu et al., 2018). (4) Fit a statistical model to evaluate the relationship between the cytoarchitectural gradients and the imaging-derived map. For research questions with a more restricted region of interest, the cytoarchitectural gradient could be reconstructed within that field of view and the same procedure could be utilised. The optimal number of cytoarchitectural gradients should be evaluated.

Example: Cytoarchitectural correlates of age-related increases in Aβ deposition in a healthy lifespan cohort (Lowe et al., 2019; Park, 2018). (1–2) First, we obtained histological gradients on fsaverage from BigBrainWarp. The construction of histological gradients is detailed in Materials and methods (Figure 5A). The transformation from BigBrain to fsaverage was performed for the toolbox, like so,

bigbrainwarp --in_space bigbrain --out_space fsaverage --wd/project/ --desc Hist_G1 --in_lh Hist_G1_lh.txt --in_rh Hist_G1_rh.txt

For this analysis, we additionally smoothed the histological gradients on fsaverage (6 mm FWHM) to approximately match the smoothing kernel of the resting-state fMRI data. (3) We previously estimated the association of age with Aβ deposition across the cortical surface by combining positron emission tomography with MRI data in 102 adults (30–89 years), and assessed correspondence to functional connectivity gradients (Lowe et al., 2019). Here, we plot the vertex-wise t-statistics against Hist-G1 and Hist-G2 (Figure 5B). (4) We determine the optimal model via the Bayesian Information Criterion in univariate and multivariate regressions between the t-statistics and histological gradients (Figure 5C). The optimal model included only Hist-G2, indicating that Aβ preferentially accumulates towards the more agranular anchor of the sensory-fugal gradient.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Tutorial 3: fsaverage → BigBrain

Motivation: A core aim of fMRI research is to map functional specialisation in the brain (Bassett et al., 2008; Eickhoff et al., 2018; Gordon et al., 2017; Raichle, 2015; Shine et al., 2019; Yeo et al., 2011). On the one hand, this work follows a long legacy of defining cortical areas, and on the other hand, it extends beyond the possibilities of post mortem research by capturing patterns of coordinated activity. For instance, clustering resting-state fMRI connectivity reveals a robust set of intrinsic functional networks (Beckmann and Smith, 2004; Gordon et al., 2017; Yeo et al., 2011). Nonetheless, there exists a gap in the literature between these well-characterised functional networks and their cytoarchitecture. BigBrain offers the opportunity to characterise and evaluate differences of cytoarchitecture for functionally defined atlases.

Approach: (1) Transform functionally-defined regions from a standard neuroimaging surface template to the BigBrain surface. Note, if the functional-defined regions are volumetric, one may use registration fusion to resample the data from ICBM2009sym to fsaverage (Wu et al., 2018). (2) Compile staining intensity profiles by functional class. (3) Assess discriminability of functional classes by staining intensity profiles.

Example: Cytoarchitectural differences of intrinsic functional networks. (1) Transform the 17-network functional atlas (Yeo et al., 2011) to the BigBrain surface.

bigbrainwarp --in_space fsaverage --out_space bigbrain --wd /project/ --desc Yeo2011_17Networks_1000 --in_lh lh.Yeo2011_17Networks_1000.annot --in_rh lh.Yeo2011_17Networks_1000.annot

(2) Stratify staining intensity profiles by network (Figure 6A). (3) Parameterise staining intensity profiles by the central moments and assess variation across functional networks (Figure 6B). For example, the mean and skewness illustrate distinct patterns of cytoarchitectural differentiation across the functional networks. Visual networks have the highest mean and lowest skewness. Somatomotor, dorsal attention and fronto-parietal networks contain most variable mean and skewness values. Ventral attention, limbic, and fronto-parietal networks harbour the lowest mean and highest skewness, whereas the default mode networks occupy an intermediary position. Notably, all the networks exhibit broad distribution of the moments, signifying substantial cytoarchitectural heterogeneity, as well as overlapping values. To quantify discriminability of functional networks by cytoarchitecture, we can attempt to classify the functional networks using the central moments. For this example, we z-standardised the central moments and split the vertices into five folds, each with an equal representation of the 17 functional networks. Then, we trained a one vs one linear support vector classification on 50% of each fold and tested the model on the remaining 50% of that fold. Functional networks were equally stratified across training and testing. Finally, for each fold, we generated a confusion matrix, showing the accurate predictions on the diagonal and the incorrect classification off the diagonal. Predictive ability provides insight into distinctiveness and homogeneity of functional networks. Visual networks harbour distinctive cytoarchitecture, reflected by relatively high accuracy and few incorrect predictions. Ventral attention, limbic, and temporo-parietal networks are relatively homogenous in cytoarchitecture, likely related to their restricted spatial distribution. The predictive accuracy did not appear to be negatively impacted by minor misalignments of the atlas, as the predictive accuracy was similar when excluding vertices within approximately 6 mm of the network boundaries (accuracy mean ± SD [%], original = 12.4 ± 15.4, excluding boundaries = 12.1 ± 13.3).

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

Beyond cartography, a major aim of neuroanatomical research has been to understand the functioning of the human brain. Throughout the 20th century, cytoarchitectural studies were instrumental in demonstrating functional specialisation across the cortex, as well as the uniqueness of the human brain amongst mammals (Brodmann, 1909; Campbell et al., 1905; Sanides, 1962; Smith, 1907; Vogt and Vogt, 1919; Vogt, 1911). Fine-grained anatomical resolution maintains an important role in understanding brain function in the modern era, helping to bridge between microcircuit organisation and macroscale findings obtained with in vivo neuroimaging. BigBrain is the first ultra-high-resolution 3D histological dataset that can be readily integrated with in vivo neuroimaging. In this report, we presented BigBrainWarp, a simple and accessible toolbox comprising histological data, previously developed transformation functions between BigBrain and standard imaging spaces, and ready-to-use transformed cortical maps. The toolbox is containerised to eliminate software dependencies and to ensure reproducibility. An expandable documentation is available, alongside several tutorials, at http://bigbrainwarp.readthedocs.io.

Multimodal registrations are core to integrating BigBrain with in vivo neuroimaging data. Identifying optimal solutions is more difficult than intra- and inter-subject co-registrations of neuroimaging data, owing to histological artefacts, differences in intensity contrasts and morphological distortions. These challenges have been addressed by recent studies, which improved integration of BigBrain with standardised MRI spaces. An automated repair algorithm was specially devised for BigBrain, which involved nonlinear alignment of neighbouring sections, intensity normalisation, outlier detection using block averaging then artefact repair using the block averages (Lepage et al., 2010; Lewis et al., 2014). Following initial transformation of BigBrain to ICBM2009b, which was part of the initial BigBrain release (Amunts et al., 2013), a recent study optimised subcortical registrations by generating a T1-T2* fusion contrast that is more similar to the BigBrain intensity contrast than a T1-weighted image (Xiao et al., 2019). Additionally, that study involved manual segmentation of subcortical nuclei to use as shape priors in the registration, which benefits the alignment of subcortical structures between BigBrain and standard neuroimaging templates. Finally, inspired by advances in the alignment of surface-based MRI data (Robinson et al., 2018; Robinson et al., 2014), the BigBrain team has recently developed a multi-modal surface matching pipeline for BigBrain that involved re-tessellation of the BigBrain surface at a higher resolution, followed by alignment to standard surface templates using coordinate, sulcal depth and curvature maps (Lewis et al., 2020). The procedure significantly improves upon previous techniques, resulting in geometric distortions comparable to those seen for registrations between neuroimaging datasets of different individuals (Lewis et al., 2020). Cortical folding is variably associated with cytoarchitecture, however. The correspondence of morphology with cytoarchitectonic boundaries is stronger in primary sensory than association cortex (Fischl et al., 2008; Rajkowska and Goldman-Rakic, 1995a; Rajkowska and Goldman-Rakic, 1995b). Incorporating more anatomical information in the alignment algorithm, such as intracortical myelin or connectivity, may benefit registration, as has been shown in neuroimaging (Orasanu et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2018; Tardif et al., 2015). Overall, evaluating the accuracy of volume- and surface-based transformations is important for selecting the optimal procedure given a specific research question and to gauge the degree of uncertainty in a registration.

Practically, 3D histological models provide an unrivalled level of precision and lend novel opportunities to cross-validate and contextualise findings from human neuroimaging. BigBrainWarp is particularly well-suited for investigations on the fundamental relationships between cytoarchitecture and function, which remains an elusive aspect of brain organisation. Our tutorials illustrate a range of use cases of BigBrain-MRI integration. In tutorial 1, we show how BigBrain can be used to initialise region of interest analyses, such as mapping resting-state functional connectivity along the iso-to-allocortical axis (Paquola et al., 2020b), enabling delineation of regions that are difficult to identify with in vivo imaging and functional interrogation of histological axes. In tutorial 2, we show how cytoarchitectural gradients can help to characterise large-scale cortical patterns, such as the association of aging with Aβ deposition (Lowe et al., 2019). This approach complements the tradition of reporting the cortical areas of significant clusters by offering a simplified topographical description of the spatial pattern. Furthermore, by comparing predictive power of various cytoarchitectural gradients, we may build towards hypotheses on the relationship between microcircuit properties and demographic or clinical factors. In tutorial 3, we discuss more specific histological features, namely moment-based parameterisation of staining intensity profiles (Schleicher et al., 1999; Zilles et al., 2002). These features depict the vast cytoarchitectural heterogeneity of the cortex and enable evaluation of homogeneity within imaging-based parcellations, for example macroscale functional communities (Yeo et al., 2011). The present analysis showed limited predictability of functional communities by cytoarchitectural profiles, even when accounting for uncertainty at the boundaries (Gordon et al., 2016). Together, these tutorials showcase how we can easily and robustly use BigBrain with BigBrainWarp to deepen our understanding of the human brain.

Despite all its promises, the singular nature of BigBrain currently prohibits replication and does not capture important inter-individual variation. While large-scale cytoarchitectural patterns are conserved across individuals, the position of areal boundaries relative to sulci vary, especially in association cortex (Amunts et al., 2020; Fischl et al., 2008; Zilles and Amunts, 2013). This can affect interpretation of BigBrain–MRI comparisons. For instance, in tutorial 3, low predictive accuracy of functional communities by cytoarchitecture may be attributable to the subject-specific topographies, which are well established in functional imaging (Benkarim et al., 2020; Braga and Buckner, 2017; Gordon et al., 2017; Kong et al., 2019). Future studies should consider the influence of inter-subject variability in concert with the precision of transformations, as these two elements of uncertainty can impact our interpretations, especially at higher granularity. Fortunately, the BigBrain team is working on new histology-based 3D models in the context of the HIBALL project (https://bigbrainproject.org/hiball.html). System neuroscience has dramatically benefitted from the availability of open resources (Di Martino et al., 2014; Milham et al., 2018; Poldrack et al., 2017; Van Essen et al., 2013). This path, together with ongoing refinements in multimodal data integration and efforts to make tools accessible, promises to further advance multi-scale neuroscience in the years to come.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the BigBrainWarp repository (https://github.com/caseypaquola/BigBrainWarp).

1. 1. Amunts K
   2. Lepage C
   3. Borgeat L
   4. Mohlberg H
   5. Dickscheid T
   6. Rousseau M-E
   7. Bludau S
   8. Bazin P-L
   9. Lewis LB
   10. Oros-Peusquens A-M
   11. Shah NJ
   12. Lippert T
   13. Zilles K
   14. Evans AC

   (2013) LORIS

   ID bigbrain. BigBrain.

   https://bigbrain.loris.ca/main.php

1. 1. Amunts K
   2. Lepage C
   3. Borgeat L
   4. Mohlberg H
   5. Dickscheid T
   6. Rousseau ME
   7. Bludau S
   8. Bazin PL
   9. Lewis LB
   10. Oros-Peusquens AM
   11. Shah NJ
   12. Lippert T
   13. Zilles K
   14. Evans AC

   (2013) BigBrain: An Ultrahigh-Resolution 3D Human Brain Model

   Science 340:1472–1475.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235381

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Amunts K
   2. Zilles K

   (2015) Architectonic Mapping of the Human Brain beyond Brodmann

   Neuron 88:1086–1107.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.001

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Amunts K
   2. Mohlberg H
   3. Bludau S
   4. Zilles K

   (2020) Julich-Brain: A 3D probabilistic atlas of the human brain’s cytoarchitecture

   Science 4588:1–10.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb4588

   • Google Scholar
4. Preprint

   1. Arnatkevičiute A
   2. Fulcher BD
   3. Oldham S
   4. Tiego J
   5. Paquola C
   6. Gerring Z
   7. Aquino K
   8. Hawi Z
   9. Johnson B
   10. Ball G
   11. Klein M
   12. Deco G
   13. Franke B
   14. Bellgrove M
   15. Fornito A

   (2020) Genetic Influences on Hub Connectivity of the Human Connectome

   bioRxiv.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.21.163915

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Avants BB
   2. Epstein CL
   3. Grossman M
   4. Gee JC

   (2008) Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: Evaluating automated labeling of elderly and neurodegenerative brain

   Medical Image Analysis 12:26–41.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2007.06.004

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. Book

   1. Baillarger JGF

   (1840)

   Recherches Sur La Structure de La Couche Corticale Des Circonvolutions

   Du Cerveau.

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Ball MJ
   2. Hachinski V
   3. Fox A
   4. Kirshen AJ
   5. Fisman M
   6. Blume W
   7. Kral VA
   8. Fox H
   9. Merskey H

   (1985) A NEW DEFINITION OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: A HIPPOCAMPAL DEMENTIA

   The Lancet 325:14–16.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(85)90965-1

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bassett DS
   2. Bullmore E
   3. Verchinski BA
   4. Mattay VS
   5. Weinberger DR
   6. Meyer-Lindenberg A

   (2008) Hierarchical organization of human cortical networks in health and schizophrenia

   The Journal of Neuroscience 28:9239–9248.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1929-08.2008

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Beckmann CF
   2. Smith SM

   (2004) Probabilistic Independent Component Analysis for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

   IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 23:137–152.

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2003.822821

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. Preprint

    1. Benkarim O
    2. Paquola C
    3. Park BY
    4. Hong SJ
    5. Royer J
    6. de Wael R
    7. Lariviere S
    8. Valk S
    9. Bzdok D
    10. Mottron L
    11. Bernhardt B

    (2020) Functional Idiosyncrasy Has a Shared Topography with Group-Level Connectivity Alterations in Autism

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.18.423291

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bernhardt BC
    2. Hong SJ
    3. Bernasconi A
    4. Bernasconi N

    (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging pattern learning in temporal lobe epilepsy: Classification and prognostics

    Annals of Neurology 77:436–446.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24341

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bernhardt BC
    2. Bernasconi A
    3. Liu M
    4. Hong SJJ
    5. Caldairou B
    6. Goubran M
    7. Guiot MC
    8. Hall J
    9. Bernasconi N

    (2016) The spectrum of structural and functional imaging abnormalities in temporal lobe epilepsy

    Annals of Neurology 80:142–153.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24691

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Betz W

    (1874)

    Anatomischer Nachweis Zweier Gehirncentra

    Cent. Für Die Med. Wissenschaften 12:74.

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Beul SF
    2. Barbas H
    3. Hilgetag CC

    (2017) A Predictive Structural Model of the Primate Connectome

    Scientific Reports 7:43176.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43176

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Bilgel M
    2. An Y
    3. Helphrey J
    4. Elkins W
    5. Gomez G
    6. Wong DF
    7. Davatzikos C
    8. Ferrucci L
    9. Resnick SM

    (2018) Effects of amyloid pathology and neurodegeneration on cognitive change in cognitively normal adults

    Brain 141:2475–2485.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy150

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Bok ST

    (1929) Der Einfluß der in den Furchen und Windungen auftretenden Krümmungen der Großhirnrinde auf die Rindenarchitektur

    Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Neurol. Und Psychiatr 121:682–750.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02864437

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Braga RM
    2. Buckner RL

    (2017) Parallel Interdigitated Distributed Networks within the Individual Estimated by Intrinsic Functional Connectivity

    Neuron 95:457–471.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Brodmann K

    (1908)

    Beiträge zur histologischen Lokalisation der Grosshirnrinde

    VI. Mitteilung: Die Cortexgliederung Des Menschen. J. Für Psychol. Und Neurol 10:231–246.

    • Google Scholar
19. Book

    1. Brodmann K

    (1909)

    Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre Der Grosshirnrinde in Ihren Prinzipien Dargestellt Auf Grund Des Zellenbaues

    Leipzig.

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Buffalo EA
    2. Fries P
    3. Landman R
    4. Buschman TJ
    5. Desimone R

    (2011) Laminar differences in gamma and alpha coherence in the ventral stream

    PNAS 108:11262–11267.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011284108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Calabresi P
    2. Castrioto A
    3. Di Filippo M
    4. Picconi B

    (2013) New experimental and clinical links between the hippocampus and the dopaminergic system in Parkinson’s disease

    The Lancet. Neurology 12:811–821.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70118-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. Book

    1. Caldairou B
    2. Bernhardt BC
    3. Kulaga-Yoskovitz J
    4. Kim H
    5. Bernasconi N
    6. Bernasconi A

    (2016) A surface patch-based segmentation method for hippocampal subfields

    In: Caldairou B, editors. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer Verlag. pp. 379–387.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_44

    • Google Scholar
23. Book

    1. Campbell AW
    2. Schlesinger EB
    3. Riley HA

    (1905)

    Histological Studies on the Localisation of Cerebral Function

    University Press.

    • Google Scholar
24. Preprint

    1. Ciric R
    2. Lorenz R
    3. Thompson WH
    4. Goncalves M
    5. MacNicol E
    6. Markiewicz CJ
    7. Halchenko YO
    8. Ghosh SS
    9. Gorgolewski KJ
    10. Poldrack RA
    11. Esteban O

    (2021) Templateflow: A Community Archive of Imaging Templates and Atlases for Improved Consistency in Neuroimaging

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.10.430678

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Coifman RR
    2. Lafon S

    (2006) Diffusion maps

    Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 21:5–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2006.04.006

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Collins DL
    2. Evans AC

    (2011) Animal: Validation and Applications of Nonlinear Registration-Based Segmentation

    International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 11:1271–1294.

    https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218001497000597

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Deistung A
    2. Schäfer A
    3. Schweser F
    4. Biedermann U
    5. Turner R
    6. Reichenbach JR

    (2013) Toward in vivo histology: A comparison of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) with magnitude-, phase-, and R2*-imaging at ultra-high magnetic field strength

    NeuroImage 65:299–314.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.055

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. DeKraker J
    2. Ferko KM
    3. Lau JC
    4. Köhler S
    5. Khan AR

    (2018) Unfolding the hippocampus: An intrinsic coordinate system for subfield segmentations and quantitative mapping

    NeuroImage 167:408–418.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. DeKraker J
    2. Lau JC
    3. Ferko KM
    4. Khan AR
    5. Köhler S

    (2019) Hippocampal subfields revealed through unfolding and unsupervised clustering of laminar and morphological features in 3D BigBrain

    NeuroImage 10:116328.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116328

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Di Martino A
    2. Yan CG
    3. Li Q
    4. Denio E
    5. Castellanos FX
    6. Alaerts K
    7. Anderson JS
    8. Assaf M
    9. Bookheimer SY
    10. Dapretto M
    11. Deen B
    12. Delmonte S
    13. Dinstein I
    14. Ertl-Wagner B
    15. Fair DA
    16. Gallagher L
    17. Kennedy DP
    18. Keown CL
    19. Keysers C
    20. Lainhart JE
    21. Lord C
    22. Luna B
    23. Menon V
    24. Minshew NJ
    25. Monk CS
    26. Mueller S
    27. Müller RA
    28. Nebel MB
    29. Nigg JT
    30. O’Hearn K
    31. Pelphrey KA
    32. Peltier SJ
    33. Rudie JD
    34. Sunaert S
    35. Thioux M
    36. Tyszka JM
    37. Uddin LQ
    38. Verhoeven JS
    39. Wenderoth N
    40. Wiggins JL
    41. Mostofsky SH
    42. Milham MP

    (2014) The autism brain imaging data exchange: Towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism

    Molecular Psychiatry 19:659–667.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2013.78

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Eickhoff SB
    2. Yeo BTT
    3. Genon S

    (2018) Imaging-based parcellations of the human brain

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 19:672–686.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-018-0071-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Felleman DJ
    2. Van Essen DC

    (1991) Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex

    Cerebral Cortex 1:1–47.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/1.1.1-a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Fischl B
    2. Sereno MI
    3. Tootell RB
    4. Dale AM

    (1999) High-resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface

    Human Brain Mapping 8:272–284.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4<272::aid-hbm10>3.0.co;2-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Fischl B
    2. Rajendran N
    3. Busa E
    4. Augustinack J
    5. Hinds O
    6. Yeo BTTT
    7. Mohlberg H
    8. Amunts K
    9. Zilles K

    (2008) Cortical folding patterns and predicting cytoarchitecture

    Cerebral Cortex 18:1973–1980.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm225

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Fonov V
    2. Evans A
    3. McKinstry R
    4. Almli C
    5. Collins D

    (2009) Unbiased nonlinear average age-appropriate brain templates from birth to adulthood

    NeuroImage 47:S102.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(09)70884-5

    • Google Scholar
36. Book

    1. Fonov V
    2. Coupé P
    3. Eskildsen S
    4. Collins L
    5. Eskildsen SF
    6. Collins DL
    7. Alzheimer’s Disease T
    8. Initiative N

    (2011a)

    Atrophy Specific MRI Brain Template for Alzheimer’s Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment

    Hal.archives-ouvertes.

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Fonov V
    2. Evans AC
    3. Botteron K
    4. Almli CR
    5. McKinstry RC
    6. Collins DL

    (2011b) Unbiased average age-appropriate atlases for pediatric studies

    NeuroImage 54:313–327.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Gordon EM
    2. Laumann TO
    3. Adeyemo B
    4. Huckins JF
    5. Kelley WM
    6. Petersen SE

    (2016) Generation and Evaluation of a Cortical Area Parcellation from Resting-State Correlations

    Cerebral Cortex 26:288–303.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu239

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Gordon EM
    2. Laumann TO
    3. Gilmore AW
    4. Newbold DJ
    5. Greene DJ
    6. Berg JJ
    7. Ortega M
    8. Hoyt-Drazen C
    9. Gratton C
    10. Sun H
    11. Hampton JM
    12. Coalson RS
    13. Nguyen AL
    14. McDermott KB
    15. Shimony JS
    16. Snyder AZ
    17. Schlaggar BL
    18. Petersen SE
    19. Nelson SM
    20. Dosenbach N

    (2017) Precision Functional Mapping of Individual Human Brains

    Neuron 95:791–807.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.07.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Goulas A
    2. Zilles K
    3. Hilgetag CC

    (2018) Cortical Gradients and Laminar Projections in Mammals

    Trends in Neurosciences 41:775–788.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2018.06.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Holdsworth SJ
    2. O’Halloran R
    3. Setsompop K

    (2019) The quest for high spatial resolution diffusion-weighted imaging of the human brain in vivo

    NMR in Biomedicine 32:e4056.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4056

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Jansen WJ
    2. Ossenkoppele R
    3. Knol DL
    4. Tijms BM
    5. Scheltens P
    6. Verhey FRJ
    7. Visser PJ
    8. Amyloid Biomarker Study Group
    9. Aalten P
    10. Aarsland D
    11. Alcolea D
    12. Alexander M
    13. Almdahl IS
    14. Arnold SE
    15. Baldeiras I
    16. Barthel H
    17. van Berckel BNM
    18. Bibeau K
    19. Blennow K
    20. Brooks DJ
    21. van Buchem MA
    22. Camus V
    23. Cavedo E
    24. Chen K
    25. Chetelat G
    26. Cohen AD
    27. Drzezga A
    28. Engelborghs S
    29. Fagan AM
    30. Fladby T
    31. Fleisher AS
    32. van der Flier WM
    33. Ford L
    34. Förster S
    35. Fortea J
    36. Foskett N
    37. Frederiksen KS
    38. Freund-Levi Y
    39. Frisoni GB
    40. Froelich L
    41. Gabryelewicz T
    42. Gill KD
    43. Gkatzima O
    44. Gómez-Tortosa E
    45. Gordon MF
    46. Grimmer T
    47. Hampel H
    48. Hausner L
    49. Hellwig S
    50. Herukka S-K
    51. Hildebrandt H
    52. Ishihara L
    53. Ivanoiu A
    54. Jagust WJ
    55. Johannsen P
    56. Kandimalla R
    57. Kapaki E
    58. Klimkowicz-Mrowiec A
    59. Klunk WE
    60. Köhler S
    61. Koglin N
    62. Kornhuber J
    63. Kramberger MG
    64. Van Laere K
    65. Landau SM
    66. Lee DY
    67. de Leon M
    68. Lisetti V
    69. Lleó A
    70. Madsen K
    71. Maier W
    72. Marcusson J
    73. Mattsson N
    74. de Mendonça A
    75. Meulenbroek O
    76. Meyer PT
    77. Mintun MA
    78. Mok V
    79. Molinuevo JL
    80. Møllergård HM
    81. Morris JC
    82. Mroczko B
    83. Van der Mussele S
    84. Na DL
    85. Newberg A
    86. Nordberg A
    87. Nordlund A
    88. Novak GP
    89. Paraskevas GP
    90. Parnetti L
    91. Perera G
    92. Peters O
    93. Popp J
    94. Prabhakar S
    95. Rabinovici GD
    96. Ramakers IHGB
    97. Rami L
    98. Resende de Oliveira C
    99. Rinne JO
    100. Rodrigue KM
    101. Rodríguez-Rodríguez E
    102. Roe CM
    103. Rot U
    104. Rowe CC
    105. Rüther E
    106. Sabri O
    107. Sanchez-Juan P
    108. Santana I
    109. Sarazin M
    110. Schröder J
    111. Schütte C
    112. Seo SW
    113. Soetewey F
    114. Soininen H
    115. Spiru L
    116. Struyfs H
    117. Teunissen CE
    118. Tsolaki M
    119. Vandenberghe R
    120. Verbeek MM
    121. Villemagne VL
    122. Vos SJB
    123. van Waalwijk van Doorn LJC
    124. Waldemar G
    125. Wallin A
    126. Wallin ÅK
    127. Wiltfang J
    128. Wolk DA
    129. Zboch M
    130. Zetterberg H

    (2015) Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: A meta-analysis

    JAMA 313:1924–1938.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.4668

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kim JS
    2. Singh V
    3. Jun KL
    4. Lerch J
    5. Ad-Dab’bagh Y
    6. MacDonald D
    7. Jong ML
    8. Kim SI
    9. Evans AC

    (2005) Automated 3-D extraction and evaluation of the inner and outer cortical surfaces using a Laplacian map and partial volume effect classification

    NeuroImage 27:210–221.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.03.036

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. Book

    1. Kim H
    2. Bernhardt BC
    3. Kulaga-Yoskovitz J
    4. Caldairou B
    5. Bernasconi A
    6. Bernasconi N

    (2014) Multivariate hippocampal subfield analysis of local MRI intensity and volume: Application to temporal lobe epilepsy

    In: Kim H, editors. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer Verlag. pp. 170–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10470-6_22

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Klein A
    2. Andersson J
    3. Ardekani BA
    4. Ashburner J
    5. Avants B
    6. Chiang MC
    7. Christensen GE
    8. Collins DL
    9. Gee J
    10. Hellier P
    11. Song JH
    12. Jenkinson M
    13. Lepage C
    14. Rueckert D
    15. Thompson P
    16. Vercauteren T
    17. Woods RP
    18. Mann JJ
    19. Parsey R

    (2009) Evaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration

    NeuroImage 46:786–802.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Knopman DS
    2. Lundt ES
    3. Therneau TM
    4. Vemuri P
    5. Lowe VJ
    6. Kantarci K
    7. Gunter JL
    8. Senjem ML
    9. Mielke MM
    10. Machulda MM
    11. Roberts RO
    12. Boeve BF
    13. Jones DT
    14. Petersen RC
    15. Jack CR

    (2018) Joint associations of β-amyloidosis and cortical thickness with cognition

    Neurobiology of Aging 65:121–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.01.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Knutsen AK
    2. Chang Y
    3. Grimm CM
    4. Phan L
    5. Taber LA
    6. Bayly P

    (2010) A new method to measure cortical growth in the developing brain

    Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 132:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4002430

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Kong R
    2. Li J
    3. Orban C
    4. Sabuncu MR
    5. Liu H
    6. Schaefer A
    7. Sun N
    8. Zuo XN
    9. Holmes AJ
    10. Eickhoff SB
    11. Yeo BTT

    (2019) Spatial Topography of Individual-Specific Cortical Networks Predicts Human Cognition, Personality, and Emotion

    Cerebral Cortex 29:2533–2551.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy123

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Kulaga-Yoskovitz J
    2. Bernhardt BC
    3. Hong SJ
    4. Mansi T
    5. Liang KE
    6. Van Der Kouwe AJW
    7. Smallwood J
    8. Bernasconi A
    9. Bernasconi N

    (2015) Multi-contrast submillimetric 3 Tesla hippocampal subfield segmentation protocol and dataset

    Scientific Data 2:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.59

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Lau JC
    2. Parrent AG
    3. Demarco J
    4. Gupta G
    5. Kai J
    6. Stanley OW
    7. Kuehn T
    8. Park PJ
    9. Ferko K
    10. Khan AR
    11. Peters TM

    (2019) A framework for evaluating correspondence between brain images using anatomical fiducials

    Human Brain Mapping 40:4163–4179.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24693

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. Book

    1. Lepage CY
    2. Mohlberg H
    3. Oros-Peusquens AM
    4. Shah NJ
    5. Pietrzyk U
    6. Amunts K
    7. Zilles K
    8. Evans AC

    (2010)

    Automatic Repair of Acquisition Defects in Reconstruction of Histology Sections of a Human Brain, in: Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping

    Barcelona.

    • Google Scholar
52. Book

    1. Lewis LB
    2. Lepage C
    3. Marc F
    4. Zilles K
    5. Amunts K
    6. Evans AC

    (2014)

    BigBrain: Initial Tissue Classification and Surface Extraction, in: Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping

    Hamburg.

    • Google Scholar
53. Book

    1. Lewis LB
    2. Lepage CY
    3. Glasser MF
    4. Coalson TS
    5. Van Essen DS
    6. Evans AC

    (2020)

    A Multimodal Surface Matching (MSM) Surface Registration Pipeline to Bridge Atlases across the MNI and the Freesurfer

    Human Connectome Project Worlds.

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Lowe AJ
    2. Paquola C
    3. Vos de Wael R
    4. Girn M
    5. Lariviere S
    6. Tavakol S
    7. Caldairou B
    8. Royer J
    9. Schrader D
    10. Bernasconi A
    11. Bernasconi N
    12. Spreng RN
    13. Bernhardt BC

    (2019) Targeting age-related differences in brain and cognition with multimodal imaging and connectome topography profiling

    Human Brain Mapping 40:5213–5230.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24767

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. MacDonald D
    2. Kabani N
    3. Avis D
    4. Evans AC

    (2000) Automated 3-D extraction of inner and outer surfaces of cerebral cortex from MRI

    NeuroImage 12:340–356.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1999.0534

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Manera AL
    2. Dadar M
    3. Fonov V
    4. Collins DL

    (2020) CerebrA, registration and manual label correction of Mindboggle-101 atlas for MNI-ICBM152 template

    Scientific Data 7:237.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0557-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Mazziotta J
    2. Toga A
    3. Evans A
    4. Fox P
    5. Lancaster J
    6. Zilles K
    7. Woods R
    8. Paus T
    9. Simpson G
    10. Pike B
    11. Holmes C
    12. Collins L
    13. Thompson P
    14. MacDonald D
    15. Iacoboni M
    16. Schormann T
    17. Amunts K
    18. Palomero-Gallagher N
    19. Geyer S
    20. Parsons L
    21. Narr K
    22. Kabani N
    23. Le Goualher G
    24. Boomsma D
    25. Cannon T
    26. Kawashima R
    27. Mazoyer B

    (2001a) A probabilistic atlas and reference system for the human brain: International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 356:1293–1322.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0915

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Mazziotta J
    2. Toga A
    3. Evans A
    4. Fox P
    5. Lancaster J
    6. Zilles K
    7. Woods R
    8. Paus T
    9. Simpson G
    10. Pike B
    11. Holmes C
    12. Collins L
    13. Thompson P
    14. MacDonald D
    15. Iacoboni M
    16. Schormann T
    17. Amunts K
    18. Palomero-Gallagher N
    19. Geyer S
    20. Parsons L
    21. Narr K
    22. Kabani N
    23. Le Goualher G
    24. Feidler J
    25. Smith K
    26. Boomsma D
    27. Hulshoff Pol H
    28. Cannon T
    29. Kawashima R
    30. Mazoyer B

    (2001b) A four-dimensional probabilistic Atlas of the human brain

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 8:401–430.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2001.0080401

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Merker B

    (1983) Silver staining of cell bodies by means of physical development

    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 9:235–241.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0270(83)90086-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Meynert T

    (1867)

    Der Bau Der Grosshirnrinde und Seine örtLichen Verschiedenheiten, Nebst einem pathologisch-anatomi- Schen Corollarium

    Vierteljahrsschrift Für Psychiatr Ihren Beziehungen Zur Morphol Und Pathol Des Cent Der Physiol Psychol Stat Und Gerichtl Med 10:77–93.

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Milham MP
    2. Craddock RC
    3. Son JJ
    4. Fleischmann M
    5. Clucas J
    6. Xu H
    7. Koo B
    8. Krishnakumar A
    9. Biswal BB
    10. Castellanos FX
    11. Colcombe S
    12. Di Martino A
    13. Zuo XN
    14. Klein A

    (2018) Assessment of the impact of shared brain imaging data on the scientific literature

    Nature Communications 9:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04976-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Möbius J
    2. Kobbelt L

    (2010) Openflipper: An open source geometry processing and rendering framework

    Lect Notes Comput Sci Including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics 6920:488–500.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27413-8_31

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Moscovitch M
    2. Rosenbaum RS
    3. Gilboa A
    4. Addis DR
    5. Westmacott R
    6. Grady C
    7. McAndrews MP
    8. Levine B
    9. Black S
    10. Winocur G
    11. Nadel L

    (2005) Functional neuroanatomy of remote episodic, semantic and spatial memory: A unified account based on multiple trace theory

    Journal of Anatomy 207:35–66.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2005.00421.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. Book

    1. Orasanu E
    2. Bazin PL
    3. Melbourne A
    4. Lorenzi M
    5. Lombaert H
    6. Robertson NJ
    7. Kendall G
    8. Weiskopf N
    9. Marlow N
    10. Ourselin S

    (2016) Longitudinal analysis of the preterm cortex using multi-modal spectral matching

    In: Orasanu E, editors. Lecture notes in computer science (Including subseries lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Cham: Springer. pp. 255–263.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46720-7_30

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Paquola C
    2. Vos De Wael R
    3. Wagstyl K
    4. Bethlehem RAI
    5. Hong SJ
    6. Seidlitz J
    7. Bullmore ET
    8. Evans AC
    9. Misic B
    10. Margulies DS
    11. Smallwood J
    12. Bernhardt BC

    (2019) Microstructural and functional gradients are increasingly dissociated in transmodal cortices

    PLOS Biology 17:e3000284.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000284

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. Preprint

    1. Paquola C
    2. Benkarim O
    3. DeKraker J
    4. Lariviere S
    5. Frässle S
    6. Royer J
    7. Tavakol S
    8. Valk S
    9. Bernasconi A
    10. Bernasconi N
    11. Khan A
    12. Evans A
    13. Razi A
    14. Smallwood J
    15. Bernhardt B

    (2020a) Convergence of Cortical Types and Functional Motifs in the Mesiotemporal Lobe

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.12.148643

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Paquola C
    2. Benkarim O
    3. Dekraker J
    4. Larivière S
    5. Frässle S
    6. Royer J
    7. Tavakol S
    8. Valk S
    9. Bernasconi A
    10. Bernasconi N
    11. Khan A
    12. Evans AC
    13. Razi A
    14. Smallwood J
    15. Bernhardt BC

    (2020b) Convergence of cortical types and functional motifs in the human mesiotemporal lobe

    eLife 9:e60673.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60673

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. Data

    1. Park DC

    (authors) (2018) Dallas lifespan Brain Study (DLBS)

    Child Mind Institute.

    http://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/indi/retro/dlbs.html
69. 1. Poldrack RA
    2. Baker CI
    3. Durnez J
    4. Gorgolewski KJ
    5. Matthews PM
    6. Munafò MR
    7. Nichols TE
    8. Poline JB
    9. Vul E
    10. Yarkoni T

    (2017) Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18:115–126.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.167

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Raichle ME

    (2015) The brain’s default mode network

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 38:433–447.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Rajkowska G
    2. Goldman-Rakic PS

    (1995a) Cytoarchitectonic definition of prefrontal areas in the normal human cortex: I Remapping of areas 9 and 46 using quantitative criteria

    Cerebral Cortex 5:307–322.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/5.4.307

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Rajkowska G
    2. Goldman-Rakic PS

    (1995b) Cytoarchitectonic definition of prefrontal areas in the normal human cortex: II. Variability in locations of areas 9 and 46 and relationship to the Talairach coordinate system

    Cerebral Cortex 5:323–337.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/5.4.323

    • Google Scholar
73. 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
74. 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 P
    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
75. 1. Rockland KS
    2. Pandya DN

    (1979) Laminar origins and terminations of cortical connections of the occipital lobe in the rhesus monkey

    Brain Research 179:3–20.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(79)90485-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Rockland KS

    (2015) About connections

    Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 9:61.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2015.00061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Rodrigue KM
    2. Kennedy KM
    3. Devous MD
    4. Rieck JR
    5. Hebrank AC
    6. Diaz-Arrastia R
    7. Mathews D
    8. Park DC

    (2012) β-amyloid burden in healthy aging: Regional distribution and cognitive consequences

    Neurology 78:387–395.

    https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318245d295

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Royer J
    2. Paquola C
    3. Larivière S
    4. Vos de Wael R
    5. Tavakol S
    6. Lowe AJ
    7. Benkarim O
    8. Evans AC
    9. Bzdok D
    10. Smallwood J
    11. Frauscher B
    12. Bernhardt BC

    (2020) Myeloarchitecture gradients in the human insula: Histological underpinnings and association to intrinsic functional connectivity

    NeuroImage 216:116859.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116859

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. Preprint

    1. Royer J
    2. Rodríguez-Cruces R
    3. Tavakol S
    4. Larivière S
    5. Herholz P
    6. Li Q
    7. Wael R de
    8. Paquola C
    9. Benkarim O
    10. Park B
    11. Lowe AJ
    12. Margulies D
    13. Smallwood J
    14. Bernasconi A
    15. Bernasconi N
    16. Frauscher B
    17. Bernhardt BC

    (2021) An Open MRI Dataset for Multiscale Neuroscience

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.04.454795

    • Google Scholar
80. Book

    1. Sanides F

    (1962) Die Architektonik Des Menschlichen Stirnhirns: Zugleich Eine Darstellung Der Prinzipien Seiner Gestaltung Als Spiegel Der Stammgeschichtlichen Differenzierung Der Grosshirnrinde

    Springer.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86210-6

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Schaefer A
    2. Kong R
    3. Gordon EM
    4. Laumann TO
    5. Zuo XN
    6. Holmes AJ
    7. Eickhoff SB
    8. Yeo BTT

    (2018) Local-Global Parcellation of the Human Cerebral Cortex from Intrinsic Functional Connectivity MRI

    Cerebral Cortex 28:3095–3114.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx179

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. Preprint

    1. Schiffer C
    2. Spitzer H
    3. Kiwitz K
    4. Unger N
    5. Wagstyl K
    6. Evans AC
    7. Harmeling S
    8. Amunts K
    9. Dickscheid T

    (2020) Convolutional Neural Networks for Cytoarchitectonic Brain Mapping at Large Scale

    arXiv.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12857

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Schleicher A
    2. Amunts K
    3. Geyer S
    4. Morosan P
    5. Zilles K

    (1999) Observer-Independent Method for Microstructural Parcellation of Cerebral Cortex: A Quantitative Approach to Cytoarchitectonics

    NeuroImage 9:165–177.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1998.0385

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Shine JM
    2. Hearne LJ
    3. Breakspear M
    4. Hwang K
    5. Müller EJ
    6. Sporns O
    7. Poldrack RA
    8. Mattingley JB
    9. Cocchi L

    (2019) The Low-Dimensional Neural Architecture of Cognitive Complexity Is Related to Activity in Medial Thalamic Nuclei

    Neuron 104:849–855.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.09.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Sitek KR
    2. Gulban OF
    3. Calabrese E
    4. Johnson GA
    5. Lage-Castellanos A
    6. Moerel M
    7. Ghosh SS
    8. De Martino F

    (2019) Mapping the human subcortical auditory system using histology, postmortem MRI and in vivo MRI at 7T

    eLife 8:e48932.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48932

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Smith GE

    (1907)

    A New Topographical Survey of the Human Cerebral Cortex, being an Account of the Distribution of the Anatomically Distinct Cortical Areas and their Relationship to the Cerebral Sulci

    Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 41:237–254.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Sperling RA
    2. Aisen PS
    3. Beckett LA
    4. Bennett DA
    5. Craft S
    6. Fagan AM
    7. Iwatsubo T
    8. Jack CR
    9. Kaye J
    10. Montine TJ
    11. Park DC
    12. Reiman EM
    13. Rowe CC
    14. Siemers E
    15. Stern Y
    16. Yaffe K
    17. Carrillo MC
    18. Thies B
    19. Morrison-Bogorad M
    20. Wagster M
    21. Phelps CH

    (2011) Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease

    Alzheimer’s Dement 7:280–292.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. Book

    1. Spitzer H
    2. Kiwitz K
    3. Amunts K
    4. Harmeling S
    5. Dickscheid T

    (2018) Improving cytoarchitectonic segmentation of human brain areas with self-supervised siamese networks

    In: Frangi A, Schnabel J, Davatzikos C, editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2018. MICCAI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag. pp. 663–671.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00931-1_76

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Squire LR
    2. Stark CEL
    3. Clark RE

    (2004) The Medial Temporal Lobe

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:279–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144130

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Tardif CL
    2. Schäfer A
    3. Waehnert M
    4. Dinse J
    5. Turner R
    6. Bazin PL

    (2015) Multi-contrast multi-scale surface registration for improved alignment of cortical areas

    NeuroImage 111:107–122.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Taubin G

    (1995) Curve and surface smoothing without shrinkage

    IEEE 10:852–857.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/iccv.1995.466848

    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Trampel R
    2. Bazin PL
    3. Pine K
    4. Weiskopf N

    (2019) In-vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of laminae in the human cortex

    NeuroImage 197:707–715.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Turner R
    2. De Haan D

    (2017) Bridging the gap between system and cell: The role of ultra-high field MRI in human neuroscience

    Progress in Brain Research 233:179–220.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.05.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Van Essen DC
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Dierker DL
    4. Harwell J
    5. Coalson T

    (2012) Parcellations and hemispheric asymmetries of human cerebral cortex analyzed on surface-based atlases

    Cerebral Cortex 22:2241–2262.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr291

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Van Essen DC
    2. Smith SM
    3. Barch DM
    4. Behrens TEJ
    5. Yacoub E
    6. 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
96. 1. Vogt O

    (1911)

    Die myeloarchitektonik Des isocortex parietalis

    J Für Psychol Und Neurol 18:379–390.

    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Vogt C
    2. Vogt O

    (1919)

    Allgemeinere Ergebnisse UNSERER Hirnforschung

    J Für Psychol Und Neurol 25:279–461.

    • Google Scholar
98. Book

    1. Von Economo C
    2. Koskinas G

    (1925)

    Die Cytoarchitektonik Der Hirnrinde Des Erwachsenen Menschen

    Berlin: Springer.

    • Google Scholar
99. 1. von Gudden B

    (1886)

    Über die Frage Der lokalisation Der Funktionen Der Grosshirnrinde

    Allg Zeitschrift Für Psychiatr 42:478–498.

    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Vos de Wael R
     2. Larivière S
     3. Caldairou B
     4. Hong SJ
     5. Margulies DS
     6. Jefferies E
     7. Bernasconi A
     8. Smallwood J
     9. Bernasconi N
     10. Bernhardt BC

     (2018) Anatomical and microstructural determinants of hippocampal subfield functional connectome embedding

     PNAS 115:10154–10159.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803667115

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Waehnert MD
     2. Dinse J
     3. Weiss M
     4. Streicher MN
     5. Waehnert P
     6. Geyer S
     7. Turner R
     8. Bazin PL

     (2014) Anatomically motivated modeling of cortical laminae

     NeuroImage 93:210–220.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2013.03.078

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Wagstyl K
     2. Lepage C
     3. Bludau S
     4. Zilles K
     5. Fletcher PC
     6. Amunts K
     7. Evans AC

     (2018a) Mapping Cortical Laminar Structure in the 3D BigBrain

     Cerebral Cortex 28:2551–2562.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy074

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. Software

     1. Wagstyl K
     2. Paquola C
     3. Bethlehem R
     4. Huth A

     (2018b) Kwagstyl/surface_tools: Initial release of equivolumetric surfaces

     Zenodo.

     https://zenodo.org/record/1412054#.YSdWoSbhV80
104. 1. Wagstyl K
     2. Larocque S
     3. Cucurull G
     4. Lepage C
     5. Cohen JP
     6. Bludau S
     7. Palomero-Gallagher N
     8. Lewis LB
     9. Funck T
     10. Spitzer H
     11. Dickscheid T
     12. Fletcher PC
     13. Romero A
     14. Zilles K
     15. Amunts K
     16. Bengio Y
     17. Evans AC

     (2020) BigBrain 3D atlas of cortical layers: Cortical and laminar thickness gradients diverge in sensory and motor cortices

     PLOS Biology 18:e3000678.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000678

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Wang XJ

     (2020) Macroscopic gradients of synaptic excitation and inhibition in the neocortex

     Nature Reviews Neuroscience 21:169–178.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0262-x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Wei Y
     2. Scholtens LH
     3. Turk E
     4. van den Heuvel MP

     (2019) Multiscale examination of cytoarchitectonic similarity and human brain connectivity

     Network Neuroscience 3:124–137.

     https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00057

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. Book

     1. Wisse LEM
     2. Daugherty AM
     3. Olsen RK
     4. Berron D
     5. Carr VA
     6. Stark CEL
     7. Amaral RSC
     8. Amunts K
     9. Augustinack JC
     10. Bender AR
     11. Bernstein JD
     12. Boccardi M
     13. Bocchetta M
     14. Burggren A
     15. Chakravarty MM
     16. Chupin M
     17. Ekstrom A
     18. de Flores R
     19. Insausti R
     20. Kanel P
     21. Kedo O
     22. Kennedy KM
     23. Kerchner GA
     24. LaRocque KF
     25. Liu X
     26. Maass A
     27. Malykhin N
     28. Mueller SG
     29. Ofen N
     30. Palombo DJ
     31. Parekh MB
     32. Pluta JB
     33. Pruessner JC
     34. Raz N
     35. Rodrigue KM
     36. Schoemaker D
     37. Shafer AT
     38. Steve TA
     39. Suthana N
     40. Wang L
     41. Winterburn JL
     42. Yassa MA
     43. Yushkevich PA
     44. la Joie R

     (2017) A harmonized segmentation protocol for hippocampal and parahippocampal subregions: Why do we need one and what are the key goals?

     In: Wisse E, editors. Hippocampus. John Wiley and Sons Inc. pp. 3–11.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22671

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Wree A
     2. Schleicher A
     3. Zilles K

     (1982) Estimation of volume fractions in nervous tissue with an image analyzer

     Journal of Neuroscience Methods 6:29–43.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0270(82)90014-0

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Wu J
     2. Ngo GH
     3. Greve D
     4. Li J
     5. He T
     6. Fischl B
     7. Eickhoff SB
     8. Yeo BTT

     (2018) Accurate nonlinear mapping between MNI volumetric and FreeSurfer surface coordinate systems

     Human Brain Mapping 39:3793–3808.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24213

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Xiao Y
     2. Fonov V
     3. Bériault S
     4. Subaie FA
     5. Chakravarty MM
     6. Sadikot AF
     7. Pike GB
     8. Collins DL

     (2015) Multi-contrast unbiased MRI atlas of a Parkinson’s disease population

     International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 10:329–341.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1068-y

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Xiao Y
     2. Fonov V
     3. Chakravarty MM
     4. Beriault S
     5. Al Subaie F
     6. Sadikot A
     7. Pike GB
     8. Bertrand G
     9. Collins DL

     (2017) A dataset of multi-contrast population-averaged brain MRI atlases of a Parkinson׳s disease cohort

     Data in Brief 12:370–379.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.04.013

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Xiao Y
     2. Lau JC
     3. Anderson T
     4. DeKraker J
     5. Collins DL
     6. Peters T
     7. Khan AR

     (2019) An accurate registration of the BigBrain dataset with the MNI PD25 and ICBM152 atlases 6

     Scientific Data 6:210.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0217-0

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Yeo BTT
     2. Krienen FM
     3. Sepulcre J
     4. Thomas Yeo BT
     5. Krienen FM
     6. Sepulcre J
     7. Sabuncu MR
     8. Lashkari D
     9. Hollinshead M
     10. Roffman JL
     11. Smoller JW
     12. Zöllei L
     13. Polimeni JR
     14. Fischl B
     15. Liu H
     16. Buckner RL
     17. Yeo BTT
     18. Krienen FM
     19. Sepulcre J

     (2011) The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity

     Journal of Neurophysiology 106:1125–1165.

     https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00338.2011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Yushkevich PA
     2. Amaral RSC
     3. Augustinack JC
     4. Bender AR
     5. Bernstein JD
     6. Boccardi M
     7. Bocchetta M
     8. Burggren AC
     9. Carr VA
     10. Chakravarty MM
     11. Chételat G
     12. Daugherty AM
     13. Davachi L
     14. Ding SL
     15. Ekstrom A
     16. Geerlings MI
     17. Hassan A
     18. Huang Y
     19. Iglesias JE
     20. La Joie R
     21. Kerchner GA
     22. LaRocque KF
     23. Libby LA
     24. Malykhin N
     25. Mueller SG
     26. Olsen RK
     27. Palombo DJ
     28. Parekh MB
     29. Pluta JB
     30. Preston AR
     31. Pruessner JC
     32. Ranganath C
     33. Raz N
     34. Schlichting ML
     35. Schoemaker D
     36. Singh S
     37. Stark CEL
     38. Suthana N
     39. Tompary A
     40. Turowski MM
     41. Van Leemput K
     42. Wagner AD
     43. Wang L
     44. Winterburn JL
     45. Wisse LEM
     46. Yassa MA
     47. Zeineh MM

     (2015) Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: Towards a harmonized segmentation protocol

     NeuroImage 111:526–541.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. Book

     1. Zilles K
     2. Schleicher A
     3. Palomero-Gallagher N
     4. Amunts K

     (2002) Quantitative Analysis of Cyto- and Receptor Architecture of the Human Brain

     In: Zilles K, editors. Brain Mapping: The Methods. Academic Press. pp. 573–602.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012693019-1/50023-x

     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Zilles K
     2. Amunts K

     (2013) Individual variability is not noise

     Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17:153–155.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2013.02.003

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Casey Paquola

   1. McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
   2. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany

   Contribution

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

   For correspondence

   casey.paquola@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   none

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0190-4103

2. Jessica Royer

   McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

   Contribution

   Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

3. Lindsay B Lewis

   McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

   Contribution

   Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

4. Claude Lepage

   McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

   Contribution

   Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

5. Tristan Glatard

   Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

   Contribution

   Software, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

6. Konrad Wagstyl

   Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Methodology, Software

   Competing interests

   none

7. Jordan DeKraker

   1. McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
   2. Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

8. Paule-J Toussaint

   McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

   Contribution

   Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   None

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7446-150X

9. Sofie L Valk

   1. Otto Hahn Group Cognitive Neurogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
   2. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany

   Contribution

   Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   none

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2998-6849

10. Louis Collins

    McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

    Contribution

    Methodology, Resources

    Competing interests

    none

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8432-7021

11. Ali R Khan

    Department of Medical Biophysics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

    Contribution

    Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    none

12. Katrin Amunts

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    none

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5828-0867

13. Alan C Evans

    McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Funding acquisition

    Competing interests

    none

14. Timo Dickscheid

    Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany

    Contribution

    Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    none

15. Boris Bernhardt

    McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    For correspondence

    boris.bernhardt@mcgill.ca

    Competing interests

    none

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9256-6041

• 2,766

  views

• 380

  downloads

• 50

  citations

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