The “limbic network,” comprising orbitofrontal and anterior temporal cortex, is part of an extended default network: Evidence from multi-echo fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) investigations have provided a view of the default network (DN) as composed of a specific set of frontal, parietal, and temporal cortical regions. This spatial topography is typically defined with reference to an influential network parcellation scheme that designated the DN as one of seven large-scale networks (Yeo et al., 2011). However, the precise functional organization of the DN is still under debate, with studies arguing for varying subnetwork configurations and the inclusion of subcortical regions. In this vein, the so-called limbic network-defined as a distinct large-scale network comprising the bilateral temporal poles, ventral anterior temporal lobes, and orbitofrontal cortex-is of particular interest. A large multi-modal and multi-species literature on the anatomical, functional, and cognitive properties of these regions suggests a close relationship to the DN. Notably, these regions have poor signal quality with conventional fMRI acquisition, likely obscuring their network affiliation in most studies. Here, we leverage a multi-echo fMRI dataset with high temporal signal-to-noise and whole-brain coverage, including orbitofrontal and anterior temporal regions, to examine the large-scale network resting-state functional connectivity of these regions and assess their associations with the DN. Consistent with our hypotheses, our results support the inclusion of the majority of the orbitofrontal and anterior temporal cortex as part of the DN and reveal significant heterogeneity in their functional connectivity. We observed that left-lateralized regions within the temporal poles and ventral anterior temporal lobes, as well as medial orbitofrontal regions, exhibited the greatest resting-state functional connectivity with the DN, with heterogeneity across DN subnetworks. Overall, our findings suggest that, rather than being a functionally distinct network, the orbitofrontal and anterior temporal regions comprise part of a larger, extended default network.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".