» Articles » PMID: 37781138

Controversies and Progress on Standardization of Large-scale Brain Network Nomenclature

Abstract

Progress in scientific disciplines is accompanied by standardization of terminology. Network neuroscience, at the level of macroscale organization of the brain, is beginning to confront the challenges associated with developing a taxonomy of its fundamental explanatory constructs. The Workgroup for HArmonized Taxonomy of NETworks (WHATNET) was formed in 2020 as an Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM)-endorsed best practices committee to provide recommendations on points of consensus, identify open questions, and highlight areas of ongoing debate in the service of moving the field toward standardized reporting of network neuroscience results. The committee conducted a survey to catalog current practices in large-scale brain network nomenclature. A few well-known network names (e.g., default mode network) dominated responses to the survey, and a number of illuminating points of disagreement emerged. We summarize survey results and provide initial considerations and recommendations from the workgroup. This perspective piece includes a selective review of challenges to this enterprise, including (1) network scale, resolution, and hierarchies; (2) interindividual variability of networks; (3) dynamics and nonstationarity of networks; (4) consideration of network affiliations of subcortical structures; and (5) consideration of multimodal information. We close with minimal reporting guidelines for the cognitive and network neuroscience communities to adopt.

Citing Articles

Functional differentiation of the default and frontoparietal control networks predicts individual differences in creative achievement: evidence from macroscale cortical gradients.

Sassenberg T, Jung R, DeYoung C Cereb Cortex. 2025; 35(3).

PMID: 40056422 PMC: 11890067. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhaf046.


GINNA, a 33 resting-state networks atlas with meta-analytic decoding-based cognitive characterization.

Gillig A, Cremona S, Zago L, Mellet E, Thiebaut de Schotten M, Joliot M Commun Biol. 2025; 8(1):253.

PMID: 39966659 PMC: 11836461. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-025-07671-2.


Dev-Atlas: A reference atlas of functional brain networks for typically developing adolescents.

Doucet G, Goldsmith C, Myers K, Rice D, Ende G, Pavelka D Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2025; 72:101523.

PMID: 39938145 PMC: 11870229. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2025.101523.


Evidence for domain-general arousal from semantic and neuroimaging meta-analyses reconciles opposing views on arousal.

Sabat M, de Dampierre C, Tallon-Baudry C Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025; 122(6):e2413808122.

PMID: 39899711 PMC: 11831115. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2413808122.


Error-driven upregulation of memory representations.

Weuthen A, Kirschner H, Ullsperger M Commun Psychol. 2025; 3(1):17.

PMID: 39885320 PMC: 11782628. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-025-00199-5.


References
1.
Honey C, Sporns O, Cammoun L, Gigandet X, Thiran J, Meuli R . Predicting human resting-state functional connectivity from structural connectivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(6):2035-40. PMC: 2634800. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0811168106. View

2.
Pervaiz U, Vidaurre D, Woolrich M, Smith S . Optimising network modelling methods for fMRI. Neuroimage. 2020; 211:116604. PMC: 7086233. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116604. View

3.
Metzak P, Feredoes E, Takane Y, Wang L, Weinstein S, Cairo T . Constrained principal component analysis reveals functionally connected load-dependent networks involved in multiple stages of working memory. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010; 32(6):856-71. PMC: 6870062. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.21072. View

4.
Melloni L, Mudrik L, Pitts M, Koch C . Making the hard problem of consciousness easier. Science. 2021; 372(6545):911-912. DOI: 10.1126/science.abj3259. View

5.
Andrews-Hanna J, Reidler J, Sepulcre J, Poulin R, Buckner R . Functional-anatomic fractionation of the brain's default network. Neuron. 2010; 65(4):550-62. PMC: 2848443. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.02.005. View