Toward a Common Terminology for the Gyri and Sulci of the Human Cerebral Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gyri and sulci of the human brain were defined by pioneers such as Louis-Pierre Gratiolet and Alexander Ecker, and extensified by, among others, Dejerine (1895) and von Economo and Koskinas (1925). Extensive discussions of the cerebral sulci and their variations were presented by Ono et al. (1990), Duvernoy (1992), Tamraz and Comair (2000), and Rhoton (2007). An anatomical parcellation of the spatially normalized single high resolution T1 volume provided by the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI; Collins, 1994; Collins et al., 1998) was used for the macroscopical labeling of functional studies (Tzourio-Mazoyer et al., 2002; Rolls et al., 2015). In the standard atlas of the human brain by Mai et al. (2016), the terminology from Mai and Paxinos (2012) is used. It contains an extensively analyzed individual brain hemisphere in the MNI-space. A recent revision of the terminology on the central nervous system in the Terminologia Anatomica (TA, 1998) was made by the Working Group Neuroanatomy of the Federative International Programme for Anatomical Terminology (FIPAT) of the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA), and posted online as the Terminologia Neuroanatomica (TNA, 2017: http://FIPAT.library.dal.ca) as the official FIPAT terminology. This review deals with the various terminologies for the cerebral gyri and sulci, aiming for a common terminology.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".