What functional organization does the model recover?
Seven reference systems · 7-network fit
- Network 2 has a prominent default-mode pole. Its positive pole resembles default mode (similarity 0.72; 53% of that pole’s weight). Its negative pole is more distributed, with weaker salience/ventral-attention and somatomotor associations.
- Visual organization appears in two different patterns. Network 3’s positive pole (similarity 0.81; 33% of that pole’s weight) and Network 4’s negative pole (similarity 0.78; 60% of that pole’s weight) both resemble visual regions. Similar anatomy alone does not establish that these are duplicate dynamical components.
- Network 5 links two distinct anatomical poles. Its positive pole resembles dorsal attention (similarity 0.53; 37% of that pole’s weight), while its negative pole resembles somatomotor organization (similarity 0.52; 28% of that pole’s weight). This is an opposing spatial pattern, not evidence of direct physiological antagonism.
Seven reference systems · 12-network fit
- Network 2 has a prominent default-mode pole. Its positive pole resembles default mode (similarity 0.71; 52% of that pole’s weight). Its negative pole is more distributed, with weaker salience/ventral-attention and somatomotor associations.
- Visual organization appears in two different patterns. Network 3’s positive pole (similarity 0.81; 32% of that pole’s weight) and Network 4’s negative pole (similarity 0.79; 62% of that pole’s weight) both resemble visual regions. Similar anatomy alone does not establish that these are duplicate dynamical components.
- Network 5 links two distinct anatomical poles. Its positive pole resembles dorsal attention (similarity 0.54; 38% of that pole’s weight), while its negative pole resembles somatomotor organization (similarity 0.55; 28% of that pole’s weight). This is an opposing spatial pattern, not evidence of direct physiological antagonism.
- A later pattern also has a clear association. Network 9’s negative pole resembles somatomotor (similarity 0.51; 30% of that pole’s weight). Increasing rank can add useful patterns, but a later network is not automatically more functionally specific.
Seven reference systems · 20-network fit
- Network 2 has a prominent default-mode pole. Its positive pole resembles default mode (similarity 0.71; 52% of that pole’s weight). Its negative pole is more distributed, with weaker salience/ventral-attention and somatomotor associations.
- Visual organization appears in two different patterns. Network 3’s positive pole (similarity 0.81; 31% of that pole’s weight) and Network 4’s negative pole (similarity 0.79; 63% of that pole’s weight) both resemble visual regions. Similar anatomy alone does not establish that these are duplicate dynamical components.
- Network 5 links two distinct anatomical poles. Its positive pole resembles dorsal attention (similarity 0.54; 38% of that pole’s weight), while its negative pole resembles somatomotor organization (similarity 0.56; 28% of that pole’s weight). This is an opposing spatial pattern, not evidence of direct physiological antagonism.
- A later pattern also has a clear association. Network 9’s negative pole resembles somatomotor (similarity 0.55; 31% of that pole’s weight). Increasing rank can add useful patterns, but a later network is not automatically more functionally specific.
These associations describe where a learned pattern is concentrated. Similarity and weight share answer different questions: a pole can resemble a system closely without placing most of its weight there. Weak or distributed matches should remain unnamed.
Findings use seven-system anatomy, regional Pearson similarity and all off-diagonal edges. They are descriptive associations, not validated functional labels. Network identities belong to this study and fitted rank.
These findings describe the seven-system reference; switch back to 7 systems to inspect the cited matches.
Explore the figure
Start with a system in the Systems menu, or select a network in Networks. The atlas shows the reference-system anatomy; the graph shows which learned poles are associated with those systems. Red links denote positive poles and blue links negative poles. Thicker links indicate stronger resemblance. Select a network to see both poles together; restore All selections to see the wider organization.
Functional systems & learned networks
How to interpret the figure
Similarity compares each pole’s off-diagonal ROI weight totals with a reference system using regional Pearson correlation. Positive and negative poles are treated separately by magnitude. A bottom bar shows the fraction of that pole’s total regional weight assigned to the system. All edges contribute to matching; reducing visible atlas edges changes the display only.
Match thresholds are descriptive. A system can have several matches or none. The seven-system findings above name the clearest associations; a finer reference may split those associations. Dark outlines indicate the table’s similarity/share rule, not statistical significance.
Reference-system atlas
Posterior projection · click a callout or choose systems and modes
Compare matches across ranks
| Reference system | Rank 7 | Rank 12 | Rank 20 |
|---|