What functional organization does the model recover?
Seven reference systems · 7-network fit
- Network 2 pairs visual and default-mode organization. Its positive pole resembles the visual system (similarity 0.58; 44% of that pole’s weight), while its negative pole resembles default mode (similarity 0.62; 43% of that pole’s weight). This is the clearest two-system opposition in this fit; the signs name the learned poles, not activation or inhibition.
- Network 4 emphasizes somatomotor organization. Its positive pole has a strong somatomotor resemblance (similarity 0.74; 31% of that pole’s weight). Frontoparietal control is the strongest match on its negative pole (similarity 0.49; 34% of that pole’s weight), with a less selective resemblance.
- Visual organization also appears in Network 5. Its positive pole matches visual regions (similarity 0.57; 45% of that pole’s weight); its opposite pole has a more modest dorsal-attention match (similarity 0.39; 24% of that pole’s weight). The same reference system can therefore participate in several learned patterns.
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
Qualifying matches by functional system
| Reference system | Rank 7 |
|---|