The fronto‐parietal network is not a flexible hub during naturalistic cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fronto-parietal network (FPN) is crucial for cognitively demanding tasks as it selectively represents task-relevant information and controls other brain regions. To implement these functions, it has been argued that it is a flexible hub that reconfigures its functional connectivity with other networks. This was supported by a study in which a set of demanding tasks were presented, that varied in their sensory features, comparison rules, and response mappings, and the FPN showed greater reconfiguration of functional connectivity between tasks than any other network. However, this task set was designed to engage the FPN, and therefore it remains an open question whether the FPN is in a flexible hub in general or only for such task sets. Using two freely available datasets (Experiment 1, N = 15, Experiment 2, N = 644), we examined dynamic functional connectivity during naturalistic cognition, while participants watched a movie. Many differences in the flexibility were found across networks but the FPN was not the most flexible hub in the brain, during either movie for any of two measures, using a regression model or a correlation model and across five timescales. We, therefore, conclude that the FPN does not have the trait of being a flexible hub, although it may adopt this state for particular task sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".