Dissociable Intrinsic Connectivity Networks for Salience Processing and Executive Control

Abstract

Variations in neural circuitry, inherited or acquired, may underlie important individual differences in thought, feeling, and action patterns. Here, we used task-free connectivity analyses to isolate and characterize two distinct networks typically coactivated during functional MRI tasks. We identified a "salience network," anchored by dorsal anterior cingulate (dACC) and orbital frontoinsular cortices with robust connectivity to subcortical and limbic structures, and an "executive-control network" that links dorsolateral frontal and parietal neocortices. These intrinsic connectivity networks showed dissociable correlations with functions measured outside the scanner. Prescan anxiety ratings correlated with intrinsic functional connectivity of the dACC node of the salience network, but with no region in the executive-control network, whereas executive task performance correlated with lateral parietal nodes of the executive-control network, but with no region in the salience network. Our findings suggest that task-free analysis of intrinsic connectivity networks may help elucidate the neural architectures that support fundamental aspects of human behavior.

Full text

Dissociable Intrinsic Connectivity Networks for Salience
Processing and Executive Control
William W. Seeley
1
, Vinod Menon
2,3
, Alan F. Schatzberg
2
, Jennifer Keller
2
, Gary H.
Glover
3,4
, Heather Kenna
2
, Allan L. Reiss
2,3
, and Michael D. Greicius
2,5
1Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco,
California 94143
2Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
3Program in Neuroscience, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
4Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
5Department of Neurology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
Abstract
Variations in neural circuitry, inherited or acquired, may underlie important individual differences
in thought, feeling, and action patterns. Here, we used task-free connectivity analyses to isolate and
characterize two distinct networks typically coactivated during functional MRI tasks. We identified
a “salience network,” anchored by dorsal anterior cingulate (dACC) and orbital frontoinsular cortices
with robust connectivity to subcortical and limbic structures, and an “executive-control network”
that links dorsolateral frontal and parietal neocortices. These intrinsic connectivity networks showed
dissociable correlations with functions measured outside the scanner. Prescan anxiety ratings
correlated with intrinsic functional connectivity of the dACC node of the salience network, but with
no region in the executive-control network, whereas executive task performance correlated with
lateral parietal nodes of the executive-control network, but with no region in the salience network.
Our findings suggest that task-free analysis of intrinsic connectivity networks may help elucidate the
neural architectures that support fundamental aspects of human behavior.
Keywords
fMRI; functional connectivity; anterior cingulate; insula; salience; anxiety
Introduction
Prevailing theories of brain function emphasize modularity and connectivity (Mesulam,
1998). Modularity describes specialized processing within dedicated brain regions, whereas
connectivity relates to contemporaneous information flow across large-scale distributed
networks. In nonhuman primates, modularity and connectivity data have been woven together
through electrophysiological and tract tracing studies. These methods are difficult to implement
in humans, creating a need for novel neuroimaging approaches.
Correspondence should be addressed to Michael D. Greicius, Departments of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room A343, Stanford, CA 94305-5235. E-mail: E-
mail: greicius@stanford.edu..
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
Published in final edited form as:
J Neurosci. 2007 February 28; 27(9): 2349–2356. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

In response, functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging (fcMRI) studies have been
used to detect brain regions whose blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal fluctuations
correlate across time in task-free or “rest” settings (Biswal et al., 1995; Greicius et al., 2003;
Beckmann et al., 2005; Fox et al., 2005). Using fcMRI, researchers have identified resting-
state cortical networks presumed to underlie sensory, motor, and cognitive functions (Lowe et
al., 1998; Cordes et al., 2000; Beckmann et al., 2005). These results support the intuitive notion
that the “resting” brain is never truly resting. Rather, in the absence of an externally cued task,
coherent brain activity can be demonstrated within a finite set of distributed spatial maps
(Beckmann et al., 2005). Therefore, in an effort to avoid misconceptions evoked by “resting-
state networks,” we will apply the term intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) throughout this
paper.
In contrast to fcMRI analyses that define networks based on intrinsic connectivity, most
functional imaging studies employ cognitive subtraction paradigms. A key limitation to these
paradigms is that they do not distinguish task-related activation in a single network from
coactivation of distinct networks (Friston et al., 1996). Regions such as the dorsal anterior
cingulate cortex (dACC), orbital frontoinsula (FI), lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), and lateral
parietal cortex are consistently recruited by cognitively demanding tasks and frequently
interpreted as constituting a unitary network, which we refer to as the task-activation ensemble
(TAE). We favor the novel term TAE over task-activation network because the literature
increasingly supports a separation of this TAE into at least two distinct subnetworks. Whereas
lateral PFC and parietal regions are frequently coactivated with dACC and FI in tasks of
attention, working memory, and response selection (Menon et al., 2001; Curtis and D’Esposito,
2003; Kerns et al., 2004; Ridderinkhof et al., 2004a), the dACC and FI also activate in response
to pain, uncertainty, and other threats to homeostasis (Peyron et al., 2000; Craig, 2002;
Grinband et al., 2006). These data suggest that dACC and FI are not responding in a task-
specific manner but rather to a degree of personal salience, whether cognitive, homeostatic, or
emotional, that cuts across tasks and requires changes in sympathetic tone (Critchley et al.,
2004; Critchley, 2005).
In the current study, we pursued the following fundamental questions related to ICNs. Do
regions activated as part of the TAE reflect distinct ICNs that support distinct subprocesses?
Can ICNs, with their signature spatial and temporal profiles, be linked to emotional and
cognitive functions? We addressed these questions by isolating two functional nodes from the
TAE, deriving distinct ICNs associated with each, and demonstrating predictable correlations
between these ICNs and individual differences in emotion and cognition measured outside the
scanner. The results highlight the distributed regional architecture and functional relevance of
two ICNs critical for adaptive human behavior.
Materials and Methods
Subjects
For the region of interest (ROI) analysis, 14 healthy subjects (ages 18 –25; mean age, 21.2
years; SD, 2.2; seven female, all right-handed) were scanned after giving written informed
consent. These subjects performed three functional tasks followed by a 4 min scan in which
they were instructed only to keep their eyes closed and try to hold still. Results from the
functional tasks have been published previously in a study comparing fMRI activation at
different magnetic field strengths (Krasnow et al., 2003). These subjects were not asked to
undergo neuropsychological testing or assessments of anxiety.
For the independent component analysis (ICA), 21 healthy subjects (ages 18 –70; mean age,
34.6; SD, 15.8; 11 female, 20 right-handed) underwent a 5 min task-free scan after giving
written informed consent. They were instructed only to keep their eyes closed and try to hold
Seeley et al. Page 2
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

still. Three additional subjects were scanned but their data were excluded before analysis
because of excessive motion and/or scanner artifact. Fifteen of the 21 subjects completed an
anxiety rating scale just before entering the scanner. All 21 subjects underwent
neuropsychological testing.
Behavioral data acquisition
Subjective anxiety rating—Just before entering the scanner, subjects were asked to rate
their level of anxiety on a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (none) to 10 (maximal).
The range was 0–7 with a mean of 1.8 and SD of 2.0.
Executive functioning—The Trail Making Test (TMT) examines the ability to switch
between competing mental sets while performing a visuomotor search task. The TMT consists
of a simple (part A) and a complex (part B) segment. Part A requires the rapid connection of
25 circled numbers randomly scattered on a page. Part B consists of circled numbers and letters
(1–13; A—L) that must be connected in alternating sequence (i.e., 1-A-2-B-3-C, etc.).
Successful Trails B performance requires working memory, mental flexibility, resistance to
distraction, and rapid visual processing. Subjects are asked to complete the task as quickly as
possible and their time and accuracy are recorded. Mean time for Trails B — A was 31.2 s
(range, 1–74; SD, 17.5). During the Trails segment B, five subjects made one error and 16
subjects made no error.
MRI data acquisition/preprocessing
ROI data—Functional images were acquired on a 3T GE Signa Excite scanner (GE Medical
Systems, Milwaukee, WI) using a standard GE whole head coil. Twenty-eight axial slices (4
mm thick, 0.5 mm skip) parallel to the plane connecting the anterior and posterior commissures
and covering the whole brain were imaged using a T2* weighted gradient echo spiral pulse
sequence (repetition time, 2000 ms; echo time, 30 ms; flip angle, 80° and 1 interleave) (Glover
and Lai, 1998). The field of view was 200 × 200 mm
2
, and the matrix size was 64 × 64, giving
an in-plane spatial resolution of 3.125 mm. To reduce blurring and signal loss arising from
field inhomogeneities, an automated high-order shimming method based on spiral acquisitions
was used before acquiring functional MRI scans (Kim et al., 2000).
Data were preprocessed and analyzed using Statistical Parametric Mapping 99 (SPM99)
(http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm). SPM99 was used here because the ROIs used in the current
study were derived from a previously published two-back working-memory dataset analyzed
in SPM99 (Krasnow et al., 2003). Images were corrected for movement using least square
minimization without higher-order corrections for spin history, and normalized (Friston et al.,
1995) to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) template. Images were then resampled
every 2 mm using sinc interpolation and smoothed with a 4 mm Gaussian kernel to decrease
spatial noise.
ICA data—Acquisition parameters for the ICA analysis were identical to those used in the
ROI analysis. The task-free scan in this case was 5 min long. Preprocessing steps, including
realignment, normalization, slice time correction, and smoothing as well as statistical analysis
were performed using SPM2.
All functional data were overlayed on the MNI template available in MRIcro
(http://www.sph.s.c.edu/comd/rorden/mricro.html) for presentation purposes.
fMRI intrinsic connectivity network analyses
ROI data—The two ROIs used in the initial phase of this study were derived from the
functional map of a previously reported two-back working-memory task (for further details,
Seeley et al. Page 3
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

see Krasnow et al., 2003). From the two-back versus control contrast we selected ROIs from
the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (MNI coordinates 44, 36, 20) and from the
right orbital FI (MNI coordinates 38, 26, –10). To obtain reasonably focal ROIs, we used a
conservative threshold for significant clusters of activation determined using the joint expected
probability distribution with height ( p < 0.0001) and extent ( p < 0.0001) thresholds, corrected
at the whole-brain level. This resulted in a 58-voxel right DLPFC ROI and a 36-voxel right
orbital FI ROI. These ROIs were then used as seed regions for separate fcMRI analyses (see
Fig. 1). That is, after removing the first eight n frames to allow for stabilization of the magnetic
field, the average time series from the task-free scan was extracted from the ROI by averaging
the time series of all voxels in the ROI. Before averaging individual voxel data, scaling and
filtering steps were performed across all brain voxels as follows. To minimize the effect of
global drift, voxel intensities were scaled by dividing the value of each time point by the mean
value of the whole-brain image at that time point. Next, the scaled waveform of each brain
voxel was filtered using a bandpass filter (∼0.0083/s < f <∼0.15/s) to reduce the effect of low-
frequency drift and high-frequency noise (Lowe et al., 1998). The scaling and filtering steps
were applied equivalently to all voxels (including those in the ROIs). The resulting time series,
representing the average intensity (after scaling and filtering) of all voxels in the ROI, was then
used as a covariate of interest in a whole-brain, linear regression, statistical parametric analysis.
As a means of controlling for non-neural noise in the ROI time series (Fox et al., 2005) we
included, as nuisance covariates, the time series of two small seven-voxel spherical ROIs
created in the white matter of the bilateral frontal lobes. Contrast images corresponding to the
ROI time series regressor were derived individually for each subject, and entered into a second-
level, random-effects analysis (height and extent thresholds of p < 0.001 for significant clusters,
corrected at the whole brain level) to determine the brain areas that showed significant
functional connectivity across subjects.
ICA data—After discarding the first eight n frames to allow for stabilization of the magnetic
field, the smoothed images were concatenated across time into a single four-dimensional
image. The four-dimensional image was then subjected to ICA with FSL melodic ICA software
(www-.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/melodic2/index.html). ICA is a statistical technique that separates a
set of signals into independent (uncorrelated and non-Gaussian) spatiotemporal components
(Beckmann and Smith, 2004). When applied to the T2* signal of fMRI, ICA allows not only
for the removal of artifact (McKeown et al., 1998; Quigley et al., 2002), but for the isolation
of task-activated neural networks (McKeown et al., 1998; Gu et al., 2001; Calhoun et al.,
2002). Most recently, ICA has been used to identify low-frequency neural networks during
task-free or cognitively undemanding fMRI scans (Greicius et al., 2004; van de Ven et al.,
2004; Beckmann et al., 2005). We allowed the software to estimate the optimal number of
components for each scan. Bandpass filtering, helpful in removing high- and low-frequency
noise before running ROI analyses, is probably less critical in ICA, which isolates these noise
sources as independent components (De Luca et al., 2006). Given the potential risk of removing
signal in addition to noise, bandpass filtering was not applied to the data used in the ICA
experiments.
The best-fit components for the right DLPFC network and the right FI network were selected
in an automated three-step process as in our previous studies (Greicius et al., 2004). This
process is illustrated in supplemental Figure 1 (available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental
material). First, because intrinsic connectivity is detected in the very low-frequency range
(Cordes et al., 2001), a frequency filter was applied to remove any components in which high-
frequency signal (>0.1 Hz) constituted 50% or more of the power in the Fourier spectrum.
Next, we used the ROI-derived group maps of the right DLPFC and right FI networks from
the first group of subjects (see Fig. 1) as standard templates to obtain goodness-of-fit scores
for the remaining low-frequency components of each subject. To do this, we used a template-
matching procedure that calculates the average z-score of voxels falling within the template
Seeley et al. Page 4
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

minus the average z-score of voxels outside the template and selects the component in which
this difference (the goodness-of-fit) is the greatest. z-scores here reflect the degree to which
the time series of a given voxel correlates with the time series corresponding to the specific
ICA component, scaled by the SD of the error term. The z-score is therefore a measure of how
many SDs the signal is from the background noise. Finally, the component with the highest
goodness-of-fit score is selected as the “best-fit” component and used in the subsequent group
analyses. This template-matching procedure was performed separately for each network and,
in 18 of 21 subjects, separate components were identified for each network. In three of 21
subjects, this algorithm selected the same component for each network. It is important to note
that this approach does not alter the components to fit the template in any way, but merely
scores the predetermined components on how well they match the template.
All group analyses were performed on the subjects’ best-fit component z-score images. We
used a random-effects model that estimates the error variance across subjects, rather than across
scans (Holmes and Friston, 1998) and therefore provides a stronger generalization to the
population from which data are acquired. It should be noted that although the best-fit
components were selected with a standard template, the images have z-scores assigned to every
voxel in the brain so that the group analyses were not constrained by the standard template
used to select the components. Using SPM2, one-sample t tests were computed separately to
generate group-level maps of the two networks. Significant clusters of activation were
determined using the joint expected probability distribution (Poline et al., 1997) with height
( p < 0.001) and extent ( p < 0.001) thresholds, corrected at the whole-brain level.
Behavioral correlation analyses (ICA data)—To test our hypotheses regarding
correlations between network functional connectivity and emotion and cognition, we
performed four separate covariate-of-interest analyses to determine whether functional
connectivity in either ICA-derived network correlated significantly with prescan anxiety or
performance on the Trail Making Test (Trails B — Trails A time). These covariate-of-interests
analyses were masked to the respective group-level networks, thresholded at p < 0.01 height
and extent, corrected at the whole-brain level. For example, when testing for correlations
between prescan anxiety and right FI network functional connectivity, the analysis was limited
to those regions included in the group-level right FI network. For these covariate analyses,
significant clusters of activation were determined using height and extent thresholds of p <
0.01, corrected at the whole-brain level.
Post hoc analysis of nodes common to both networks. Although the two networks identified
here are mostly nonoverlapping, a few significant clusters were seen in both networks. To
explore this phenomenon further, we first identified those voxels that appeared in both networks
using either the ROI or ICA approach. These shared nodes were determined by performing an
intersection analysis of the four thresholded statistical maps of the networks (the two ROI-
derived maps shown in Fig. 1 and the two ICA-derived maps shown in Fig. 2). This analysis
produced three small clusters; the largest one, consisting of 21 voxels, was located in the left
FI region (−32, 24, −10). Then, in the 14 subjects used for the ROI analysis, we examined
intrasubject correlations between this left FI cluster and the two seed ROIs (right FI and right
DLPFC) used to derive the network maps in Figure 1. Finally, using the ICA data, we calculated
intrasubject correlation coefficients for the executive-control and salience network component
time series in each subject. For the three of 21 subjects in whom the template-matching
algorithm selected the same component for each network, the correlation coefficient was set
to 1.
Seeley et al. Page 5
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Results
Intrinsic connectivity analyses
ROI—To disentangle the networks evoked by task performance (TAE), we used brain
activations elicited during a spatial working memory task (Krasnow et al., 2003) to select two
ROIs within the right frontal lobe (Fig. 1A). The first ROI was centered on the right FI (caudal
area 47/12 into the anterior insula), chosen for its purported roles in interoceptive and
autonomic processing (Craig, 2002; Critchley, 2005). We selected the second ROI from the
right dorsolateral PFC (areas 45/46) for its established roles in working memory and control
processes (Curtis and D’Esposito, 2003; Kerns et al., 2004). We then determined the functional
connectivity of each ROI in a group of 14 subjects scanned during undirected wakefulness with
eyes closed. For each subject, the averaged BOLD signal time course from each ROI was used
as a regressor to identify brain regions whose BOLD signal fluctuations were highly correlated
with the ROI (height and extent thresholds of p < 0.001 for significant clusters, corrected at
the whole-brain level). Using this approach, we separated the TAE into two distinct networks
(Fig. 1B, supplemental Fig. 2, Table 1, available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental
material). The right FI showed prominent intrinsic connectivity with related paralimbic regions,
subcortical and brainstem structures, and the limbic system, whereas right DLPFC connectivity
involved primarily lateral frontal-parietal heteromodal association cortices.
ICA—To replicate and expand on our findings with a convergent method in a larger dataset,
network maps of intrinsic connectivity were constructed using ICA in a separate group of 21
subjects. We used an automated template-matching procedure (Greicius et al., 2004) using the
right FI and DLPFC networks, identified with the ROI-based analysis, as templates
(supplemental Fig. 1, available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material). This method
allowed us to pinpoint the component for each subject that best corresponded to the right FI
and DLPFC networks identified in the ROI analyses. The goodness-of-fit scores, reflecting the
spatial correlation between the ROI-derived network template and a subject’s best-fit
component, are shown for each subject and both networks in supplemental Figure 3 (available
at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material). The ICA approach provided two chief
benefits. First, it confirmed that there are two stable and distinct networks anchored by the FI
and DLPFC. Second, it uncovered nodes not easily identified with the ROI-driven analysis,
which is more prone to contamination by non-neural signals that ICA is able to identify and
isolate (Beckmann et al., 2005). Figure 2 (supplemental Fig. 2, Table 2, available at
www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material) shows the group-level maps of the ICA-derived
networks, which reproduce and extend the major findings from the ROI analysis. The ICA-
derived right FI network is composed of related paralimbic regions, including the bilateral FI,
anterior insula, dACC/paracingulate cortex, and the superior temporal pole. There is additional
connectivity with the DLPFC (BA 46) and supplementary motor area (SMA)/pre-SMA, as
well as frontal, temporal, and parietal opercular regions. Remarkably, this network further
includes subcortical sites predicted by the monkey tract tracing literature (Mesulam and
Mufson, 1982; Ongur and Price, 2000), including the sublenticular extended amygdala, ventral
striatopallidum, dorsomedial thalamus, hypothalamus, periaqueductal gray, and substantia
nigra/ventral tegmental area. We refer to this network, which unites conflict monitoring,
interoceptive-autonomic, and reward-processing centers as the “salience network,” based on
the relevant literature and our behavioral findings detailed subsequently.
The ICA-derived right DLPFC network, in contrast, is made up of lateral neocortical sites
involved in cognition. Specifically, the bilateral DLPFC, ventrolateral PFC, dorsomedial PFC,
and lateral parietal cortices are incorporated, as well as a site in the left frontoinsula. Consistent
with monkey anatomic data (Selemon and Goldman-Rakic, 1988), this group of regions is
functionally coupled to the dorsal caudate and anterior thalamus but lacks connectivity with
Seeley et al. Page 6
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

limbic, hypothalamic, and midbrain structures. We refer to this network as the “executive-
control network,” based on the association of its nodes with working memory and control
processes and the behavioral correlations of this study.
Behavioral correlations with intrinsic connectivity networks
The most far-reaching question we posed was whether regional functional connectivity within
the salience and executive-control networks in the task-free setting would correlate with subject
attributes measured outside the scanner. In other words, do individual differences in intrinsic
connectivity strength correlate with how one feels and thinks in daily life? We hypothesized
that the salience network would relate to interoceptive-autonomic processing, and we asked
subjects to rate their level of prescan anxiety using a 10-point VAS. Probing both networks,
we sought regions whose functional connectivity in the undirected state was correlated with
VAS anxiety ratings. As shown in Figure 3 (supplemental Fig. 2, available at
www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material), prescan anxiety correlated significantly (height
and extent thresholds of p < 0.01, corrected at the cluster level across the whole brain) with
functional connectivity in two nodes in the salience network: the dACC (10, 34, 24; 500 voxels;
peak z-score, 4.03) and the left DLPFC (−32, 44, 16; 111 voxels; peak z-score, 4.25). There
were no regions in the salience network whose functional connectivity was inversely correlated
with anxiety. More importantly, anxiety ratings showed no correlation with functional
connectivity in the executive-control network. We then performed a parallel analysis of
performance on Trails B, an executive-function task with attentional, working memory, and
cognitive control demands. We anticipated an inverse correlation between regional functional
connectivity and time required for task completion (reflected by the Trails B minus Trails A
time), such that greater functional connectivity would reflect superior (faster) performance.
Here, we found a significant inverse correlation between Trails B — Trails A time and two
nodes in the executive-control network: the left intraparietal sulcus/superior parietal lobule
(−38, −78, 36; 196 voxels; peak z-score, 4.17) and the right intraparietal sulcus/superior parietal
lobule (36, −80, 26; 225 voxels; peak z-score, 4.05) (Fig. 3, supplemental Fig. 2, available at
www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material). There were no regions in the executive-control
network whose functional connectivity predicted slower performance, and, critically, Trails B
performance did not correlate (positively or negatively) with functional connectivity in the
salience network. Thus, intrinsic functional connectivity in the salience network correlated
with anxiety but not executive function, whereas intrinsic functional connectivity in the
executive-control network correlated with executive function but not anxiety, providing a
double dissociation of function between the two networks.
Post hoc analysis of nodes common to both networks
To identify nodes that were common to both networks, we performed an intersection analysis
of the four maps displayed in Figures 1 and 2 (supplemental Fig. 2, available at
www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material). This yielded 32 voxels across three clusters, one
in the left FI region (−32, 24, −10), one in the medial prefrontal cortex (4, 24, 48), and one in
the right DLPFC (42, 48, 20). We extracted the time series for the left FI ROI (the largest of
the three clusters at 21 voxels). Supplemental Table 3 (available at www.jneurosci.org as
supplemental material) displays the correlation coefficients between this left FI cluster’s time
series and the time series from the original seed ROIs (right FI and right DLPFC) for the 14
subjects in the ROI analysis. The mean correlation coefficient between the two seed ROIs was
small but significantly different from zero (r = 0.17; SD, 0.26; one-sample t test, p < 0.05).
The left FI region was significantly correlated with both the right FI region (r = 0.49; SD, 0.18;
one-sample t test, p < 0.0001) and the right DLPFC (r = 0.32; SD, 0.15; one-sample t test, p <
0.0001). Time series from these three ROIs are shown for two representative subjects in
supplemental Figure 4 (available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material). Lastly, in
supplemental Table 4 (available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material), we report
Seeley et al. Page 7
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

the correlation coefficients between the salience component and executive-control component
time series in the 21 subjects in the ICA experiment. The mean correlation coefficient here,
reflecting the degree of temporal correlation between the networks as a whole, is significantly
greater than zero (r = 0.18; SD, 0.38; p < 0.05, one-sample t test), but suggests that temporal
activity in one network explains <5% of the variance (r
2
= 0.03) in temporal activity of the
other network.
Discussion
This study forges a new link between intrinsic brain connectivity and how individual brains
function. By mapping ICNs during undirected mental activity, we identified two dissociable
networks in humans that are critical for guidance of thought and behavior (Ridderinkhof et al.,
2004b; Critchley, 2005). These networks, which reflect paralimbic emotional salience
processing and dorsal neocortical executive control systems, have been detailed previously in
the monkey (Mesulam and Mufson, 1982; Selemon and Goldman-Rakic, 1988; Ongur et al.,
1998). Our findings demonstrate the fidelity with which ICNs can extend primate network
mapping data to humans. Combined with MR diffusion tractography, ICN mapping may
provide a key step toward building a comprehensive human connectivity atlas (Sporns et al.,
2005). More importantly, our data show the potential utility of such a project, because ICNs
appear to correlate with how humans function outside the scanner.
Interest in ICN mapping has accelerated (Raichle et al., 2001; Greicius et al., 2003; Fox et al.,
2005) because of its potential for elucidating brain organization (Beckmann et al., 2005; Fox
et al., 2005; Fransson, 2005), function, and dysfunction (Greicius et al., 2004). Key
environmental factors during neural development may influence synaptic strengths between
spatially distant network components (Bi and Poo, 1999). These strengths, in turn, may bias
information processing in a way that influences mental life. In this study, individuals with high
dACC connectivity within a salience processing network showed a greater degree of stressor-
associated anticipatory anxiety. Likewise, stronger intraparietal sulcus connectivity within an
executive-control network predicted superior executive task performance.
Functional significance of the salience and executive-control networks
The nervous system is continuously bombarded by internal and extrapersonal stimuli. A
leading priority is to identify the most homeostatically relevant among these myriad inputs.
This capacity requires a system that can integrate highly processed sensory data with visceral,
autonomic, and hedonic “markers,” (Damasio, 1999) so that the organism can decide what to
do (or not to do) next. We propose that the salience network described here is well suited for
this purpose. It is built around paralimbic structures, most prominently the dACC and orbital
frontoinsula, that underlie interoceptive-autonomic processing (Mesulam, 1998; Damasio,
1999; Craig, 2002; Critchley, 2005). These regions coactivate in response to varied forms of
salience, including the emotional dimensions of pain (Peyron et al., 2000), empathy for pain
(Singer et al., 2004b), metabolic stress, hunger, or pleasurable touch (Craig, 2002), enjoyable
“chills” to music (Blood and Zatorre, 2001), faces of loved ones (Bartels and Zeki, 2004) or
allies (Singer et al., 2004a), and social rejection (Eisenberger et al., 2003). Most remaining
nodes in the salience network are subcortical sites for emotion, homeostatic regulation, and
reward (Ongur and Price, 2000; Menon and Levitin, 2005). A thalamic node, which may help
bind the circuit together, appears to lie in the dorsomedial nucleus. Although a rough estimation
of this ICN has been noted before (Beckmann et al., 2005), here we have detailed its subcortical
connectivity for the first time and showed its relationship to individual differences in anxiety
state. The findings provide a physiological backdrop for two related research streams, one
regarding the cognitive role of the ACC in processing errors and conflict (Menon et al.,
2001; Kerns et al., 2004; Ridderinkhof et al., 2004a), and another suggesting that the dACC
Seeley et al. Page 8
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

and FI are specialized modules for sympathetic efference and interoceptive feedback (Critchley
et al., 2000, 2004; Craig, 2002; Saper, 2002; Critchley, 2005). In addition to other
cytoarchitectonic similarities (Ongur et al., 2003), in humans and great apes the ACC and FI
feature a large, bipolar projection neuron found nowhere else in the brain (von Economo,
1926; Nimchinsky et al., 1999). These cells, called von Economo neurons, are far more
abundant in humans than in apes and may provide the human salience network with
phylogenetically new yet disease-susceptible capabilities (Allman et al., 2005; Seeley et al.,
2006).
In contrast to the salience network, the executive-control network is equipped to operate on
identified salience. Such operations require directing attention to pertinent stimuli as behavioral
choices are weighed against shifting conditions, background homeostatic demands, and
context. To achieve this level of response flexibility, the brain must exert control over posterior
sensorimotor representations and maintain relevant data in mind until actions are selected. A
network geared for this purpose should, and appears to include known sites for sustained
attention and working memory (DLPFC, lateral parietal cortex) (Curtis and D’Esposito,
2003), response selection (dorsomedial frontal/pre-SMA) (Lau et al., 2006), and response
suppression (ventrolateral prefrontal cortex) (Ridderinkhof et al., 2004b). Subcortical
connectivity of the executive-control network mirrors that seen in the monkey (Selemon and
Goldman-Rakic, 1988) and does not extend to autonomic control sites.
Limitations and relationship to previous work
An important potential limitation of this study is that VAS anxiety scores were acquired before
subjects entered the scanner. As such, we cannot be sure whether these scores accurately
reflected subjects’ degree of anxiety during the scan (state phenomenon) or instead a general
tendency toward anxiety (trait phenomenon). This methodological limitation relates to the
critical question of whether spontaneous ICN activity reflects ongoing conscious mental
activity or a nonconscious means of maintaining canonical networks in a primed state (Raichle,
2006). Evidence for the latter possibility is growing. For example, some simple sensory ICNs
are detectable in anesthetized children (Kiviniemi et al., 2000) and even putatively cognitive
ICNs appear detectable in subjects presumed to be in the early stages of sleep (Fukunaga et
al., 2006). In light of these findings, the correlations reported here suggest that a subject’s
anxiety trait (rather than state) is coded, to some degree, in the underlying neural architecture
of the salience network. Similarly, a subject’s cognitive processing and set-shifting speed
appears to be coded, to some degree, in the connectivity strength of bilateral intraparietal sulcus
nodes of the executive-control network. Additional studies are needed to dissect ICN trait
versus state contributions, using validated measures in large cohorts.
This work builds on a series of papers using task-free, intrinsic connectivity analyses. Using
both ROI-based methods (Biswal et al., 1995; Cordes et al., 2000; Hampson et al., 2002) and
ICA (Beckmann et al., 2005; Damoiseaux et al., 2006; De Luca et al., 2006), multiple labs
have demonstrated separate ICNs corresponding to the sensorimotor cortex, primary auditory
and visual areas, and language centers. Previous work using both ROI analyses (Greicius et
al., 2003; Fox et al., 2005; Fransson, 2005; Vincent et al., 2006) and ICA (Greicius and Menon,
2004; Beckmann et al., 2005; Damoiseaux et al., 2006; De Luca et al., 2006) has focused on
the ICN known as the default mode network: a set of consistently “deactivated” brain regions
whose activity waxes during task-free periods and wanes during task performance (Raichle et
al., 2001). In the last two years, ICNs featuring typically activated brain regions (e.g., DLPFC,
lateral parietal cortex, anterior cingulate, anterior insula) have also been reported with both
ROI-based methods (Fox et al., 2005; Fransson, 2005) and ICA (Beckmann et al., 2005;
Damoiseaux et al., 2006; De Luca et al., 2006). The ROI-based papers by Fox et al. (2005) and
Fransson (2005) have reported two inversely correlated ICNs referred to as task-positive and
Seeley et al. Page 9
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

task-negative (default mode) networks. The single task-positive network reported in these two
papers has consistently been divided into separate networks when ICA is used (Beckmann et
al., 2005; Damoiseaux et al., 2006; De Luca et al., 2006). Conflation of these distinct networks
in ROI studies seems to result from how the connectivity maps are defined. In the papers by
both Fox et al. (2005) and Fransson (2005), the task-positive network is defined in part (Fox
et al., 2005) or exclusively (Fransson, 2005) as regions showing inverse correlations with the
default mode. A previous report by our group showed that both the right FI and right DLPFC
nodes used in the current study are inversely correlated with the posterior cingulate, a prominent
region within the default mode network (Greicius et al., 2003). In short, the most ecumenical
interpretation of the previous studies and current findings is that in task-free settings both the
salience network and the executive-control network are inversely correlated with the default
mode network but only minimally correlated with one another.
A most recent study (Hampson et al., 2006), published while the current manuscript was in
revision, has also reported a correlation between cognitive function and intrinsic connectivity,
although in a separate network. Using an ROI analysis of task-free connectivity in nine subjects,
Hampson et al. (2006) reported that greater connectivity between the posterior cingulate and
medial prefrontal nodes of the default mode network correlated with better performance on a
working memory task. Given the differences in methods, sample sizes, and networks analyzed,
it is difficult to compare the results of that study directly with those reported here, except to
note that now two independent groups have found correlations between intrinsic connectivity
and cognitive performance.
Interactions across ICNs
Although the thrust of this report has been to demonstrate that the salience and executive-
control networks are distinct, it is important, and perhaps informative, to acknowledge that
they are not completely independent. We identified three small clusters that were present in
both networks (defined with either the ROI or ICA technique). Analysis of activity in the left
FI node revealed that it was strongly correlated with both the right FI (r = 0.49) and right
DLPFC (r = 0.32) seed ROIs. In contrast, the component time series (reflecting mean activity
across all the nodes in a network) showed only a weak correlation (mean, r = 0.18; 21 subjects)
between the networks. These findings suggest that the temporal overlap between the two
networks is restricted to a small number of common nodes. Whether such nodes transfer
information, facilitate “switching” between networks, or underlie some other key interaction
remains an important issue that we hope to pursue in subsequent studies.
In summary, we used fcMRI to detail two fundamental cortical-subcortical networks in the
human. These ICNs play vital and dissociable roles in human emotion and cognition.
Additional study of ICN profiles may help clarify how differences in neural architecture
produce individual differences in thought, feeling, and action patterns.
Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association Grant
NIRG-04-1060, National Science Foundation Grant 0449927, and National Institutes of Health Grants K08
AG027086-01, HD047520, MH050604, MH019938, NS048302, RR000070, and RR009784.
Seeley et al. Page 10
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

References
Allman JM, Watson KK, Tetreault NA, Hakeem AY. Intuition and autism: a possible role for Von
Economo neurons. Trends Cogn Sci 2005;9:367–373. [PubMed: 16002323]
Bartels A, Zeki S. The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. Neuroimage 2004;21:1155–1166.
[PubMed: 15006682]
Beckmann CF, Smith SM. Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic
resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004;23:137–152. [PubMed: 14964560]
Beckmann CF, DeLuca M, Devlin JT, Smith SM. Investigations into resting-state connectivity using
independent component analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005;360:1001–1013. [PubMed:
16087444]
Bi G, Poo M. Distributed synaptic modification in neural networks induced by patterned stimulation.
Nature 1999;401:792–796. [PubMed: 10548104]
Biswal B, Yetkin FZ, Haughton VM, Hyde JS. Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting
human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:537–541. [PubMed: 8524021]
Blood AJ, Zatorre RJ. Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in brain regions
implicated in reward and emotion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:11818––11823. [PubMed:
11573015]
Calhoun VD, Pekar JJ, McGinty VB, Adali T, Watson TD, Pearlson GD. Different activation dynamics
in multiple neural systems during simulated driving. Hum Brain Mapp 2002;16:158––167. [PubMed:
12112769]
Cordes D, Haughton VM, Arfanakis K, Wendt GJ, Turski PA, Moritz CH, Quigley MA, Meyerand ME.
Mapping functionally related regions of brain with functional connectivity MR imaging. AJNR Am J
Neuroradiol 2000;21:1636––1644. [PubMed: 11039342]
Cordes D, Haughton VM, Arfanakis K, Carew JD, Turski PA, Moritz CH, Quigley MA, Meyerand ME.
Frequencies contributing to functional connectivity in the cerebral cortex in “resting-state” data.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1326––1333. [PubMed: 11498421]
Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev
Neurosci 2002;3:655–666. [PubMed: 12154366]
Critchley HD. Neural mechanisms of autonomic, affective, and cognitive integration. J Comp Neurol
2005;493:154––166. [PubMed: 16254997]
Critchley HD, Elliott R, Mathias CJ, Dolan RJ. Neural activity relating to generation and representation
of galvanic skin conductance responses: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci
2000;20:3033–3040. [PubMed: 10751455]
Critchley HD, Wiens S, Rotshtein P, Ohman A, Dolan RJ. Neural systems supporting interoceptive
awareness. Nat Neurosci 2004;7:189–195. [PubMed: 14730305]
Curtis CE, D Esposito M. Persistent activity in the prefrontal cortex during working memory. Trends
Cogn Sci 2003;7:415–423. [PubMed: 12963473]
Damasio, AR. The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt;
Orlando, FL: 1999.
Damoiseaux JS, Rombouts SA, Barkhof F, Scheltens P, Stam CJ, Smith SM, Beckmann CF. Consistent
resting-state networks across healthy subjects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006;103:13848–13853.
[PubMed: 16945915]
De Luca M, Beckmann CF, De Stefano N, Matthews PM, Smith SM. fMRI resting state networks define
distinct modes of long-distance interactions in the human brain. Neuroimage 2006;29:1359–1367.
[PubMed: 16260155]
Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, Williams KD. Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion.
Science 2003;302:290–292. [PubMed: 14551436]
Fox MD, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Corbetta M, Van Essen DC, Raichle ME. The human brain is
intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticor-related functional networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2005;102:9673–9678. [PubMed: 15976020]
Fransson P. Spontaneous low-frequency BOLD signal fluctuations: an fMRI investigation of the resting-
state default mode of brain function hypothesis. Hum Brain Mapp 2005;26:15–29. [PubMed:
15852468]
Seeley et al. Page 11
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Friston KJ, Ashburner J, Frith CD, Poline JB, Heather JD, Frackowiak RSD. Spatial registration and
normalization of images. Hum Brain Mapp 1995;2:165–189.
Friston KJ, Price CJ, Fletcher P, Moore C, Frackowiak RS, Dolan RJ. The trouble with cognitive
subtraction. Neuroimage 1996;4:97–104. [PubMed: 9345501]
Fukunaga M, Horovitz SG, van Gelderen P, de Zwart JA, Jansma JM, Ikonomidou VN, Chu R, Deckers
RH, Leopold DA, Duyn JH. Large-amplitude, spatially correlated fluctuations in BOLD fMRI signals
during extended rest and early sleep stages. Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:979–992. [PubMed:
16997067]
Glover GH, Lai S. Self-navigated spiral fMRI: interleaved versus single-shot. Magn Reson Med
1998;39:361–368. [PubMed: 9498591]
Greicius MD, Menon V. Default-mode activity during a passive sensory task: uncoupled from
deactivation but impacting activation. J Cogn Neurosci 2004;16:1484–1492. [PubMed: 15601513]
Greicius MD, Krasnow B, Reiss AL, Menon V. Functional connectivity in the resting brain: a network
analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:253–258. [PubMed:
12506194]
Greicius MD, Srivastava G, Reiss AL, Menon V. Default-mode network activity distinguishes
Alzheimer’s disease from healthy aging: evidence from functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2004;101:4637–4642. [PubMed: 15070770]
Grinband J, Hirsch J, Ferrera VP. A neural representation of categorization uncertainty in the human
brain. Neuron 2006;49:757–763. [PubMed: 16504950]
Gu H, Engelien W, Feng H, Silbersweig DA, Stern E, Yang Y. Mapping transient, randomly occurring
neuropsychological events using independent component analysis. Neuroimage 2001;14:1432–1443.
[PubMed: 11707099]
Hampson M, Peterson BS, Skudlarski P, Gatenby JC, Gore JC. Detection of functional connectivity using
temporal correlations in MR images. Hum Brain Mapp 2002;15:247–262. [PubMed: 11835612]
Hampson M, Driesen NR, Skudlarski P, Gore JC, Constable RT. Brain connectivity related to working
memory performance. J Neurosci 2006;26:13338–13343. [PubMed: 17182784]
Holmes AP, Friston KJ. Generalisability, random effects and population inference. Neuroimage
1998;7:S754.
Kerns JG, Cohen JD, MacDonald AW III, Cho RY, Stenger VA, Carter CS. Anterior cingulate conflict
monitoring and adjustments in control. Science 2004;303:1023–1026. [PubMed: 14963333]
Kim, DH.; Adalsteinsson, E.; Glover, GH.; Spielman, S. SVD regularization algorithm for improved
high-order shimming. Proceeedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of ISMRM; Denver: ISMRM; 2000.
p. 1685
Kiviniemi V, Jauhiainen J, Tervonen O, Paakko E, Oikarinen J, Vainionpaa V, Rantala H, Biswal B.
Slow vasomotor fluctuation in fMRI of anesthetized child brain. Magn Reson Med 2000;44:373–
378. [PubMed: 10975887]
Krasnow B, Tamm L, Greicius MD, Yang TT, Glover GH, Reiss AL, Menon V. Comparison of fMRI
activation at 3 and 1.5 T during perceptual, cognitive, and affective processing. Neuroimage
2003;18:813–826. [PubMed: 12725758]
Lau H, Rogers RD, Passingham RE. Dissociating response selection and conflict in the medial frontal
surface. Neuroimage 2006;29:446–451. [PubMed: 16150611]
Lowe MJ, Mock BJ, Sorenson JA. Functional connectivity in single and multislice echoplanar imaging
using resting-state fluctuations. Neuroimage 1998;7:119–132. [PubMed: 9558644]
McKeown MJ, Jung TP, Makeig S, Brown G, Kindermann SS, Lee TW, Sejnowski TJ. Spatially
independent activity patterns in functional MRI data during the stroop color-naming task. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 1998;95:803–810. [PubMed: 9448244]
Menon V, Levitin DJ. The rewards of music listening: response and physiological connectivity of the
mesolimbic system. Neuroimage 2005;28:175–184. [PubMed: 16023376]
Menon V, Adleman NE, White CD, Glover GH, Reiss AL. Error-related brain activation during a Go/
NoGo response inhibition task. Hum Brain Mapp 2001;12:131–143. [PubMed: 11170305]
Mesulam MM. From sensation to cognition. Brain 1998;121:1013–1052. [PubMed: 9648540]
Seeley et al. Page 12
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Mesulam MM, Mufson EJ. Insula of the old world monkey. III: efferent cortical output and comments
on function. J Comp Neurol 1982;212:38–52. [PubMed: 7174907]
Nimchinsky EA, Gilissen E, Allman JM, Perl DP, Erwin JM, Hof PR. A neuronal morphologic type
unique to humans and great apes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999;96:5268–5273. [PubMed: 10220455]
Ongur D, Price JL. The organization of networks within the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex of rats,
monkeys, and humans. Cereb Cortex 2000;10:206–219. [PubMed: 10731217]
Ongur D, An X, Price JL. Prefrontal cortical projections to the hypothalamus in macaque monkeys. J
Comp Neurol 1998;401:480–505. [PubMed: 9826274]
Ongur D, Ferry AT, Price JL. Architectonic subdivision of the human orbital and medial prefrontal cortex.
J Comp Neurol 2003;460:425–449. [PubMed: 12692859]
Peyron R, Laurent B, Garcia-Larrea L. Functional imaging of brain responses to pain. A review and meta-
analysis (2000). Neurophysiol Clin 2000;30:263–288. [PubMed: 11126640]
Poline JB, Worsley KJ, Evans AC, Friston KJ. Combining spatial extent and peak intensity to test for
activations in functional imaging. Neuroimage 1997;5:83–96. [PubMed: 9345540]
Quigley MA, Haughton VM, Carew J, Cordes D, Moritz CH, Meyerand ME. Comparison of independent
component analysis and conventional hypothesis-driven analysis for clinical functional MR image
processing. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:49–58. [PubMed: 11827875]
Raichle ME. Neuroscience. The brain’s dark energy. Science 2006;314:1249–1250. [PubMed: 17124311]
Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL. A default mode of brain
function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:76–682.
Ridderinkhof KR, Ullsperger M, Crone EA, Nieuwenhuis S. The role of the medial frontal cortex in
cognitive control. Science 2004a;306:443–447. [PubMed: 15486290]
Ridderinkhof KR, van den Wildenberg WP, Segalowitz SJ, Carter CS. Neurocognitive mechanisms of
cognitive control: the role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance
monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain Cogn 2004b;56:129–140. [PubMed: 15518930]
Saper CB. The central autonomic nervous system: conscious visceral perception and autonomic pattern
generation. Annu Rev Neurosci 2002;25:433–469. [PubMed: 12052916]
Seeley WW, Carlin DA, Allman JM, Macedo MN, Bush C, Miller BL, Dear-mond SJ. Early
frontotemporal dementia targets neurons unique to apes and humans. Ann Neurol 2006;60:660–667.
[PubMed: 17187353]
Selemon LD, Goldman-Rakic PS. Common cortical and subcortical targets of the dorsolateral prefrontal
and posterior parietal cortices in the rhesus monkey: evidence for a distributed neural network
subserving spatially guided behavior. J Neurosci 1988;8:4049–4068. [PubMed: 2846794]
Singer T, Kiebel SJ, Winston JS, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Brain responses to the acquired moral status of
faces. Neuron 2004a;41:653–662. [PubMed: 14980212]
Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Empathy for pain involves the affective
but not sensory components of pain. Science 2004b;303:1157–1162. [PubMed: 14976305]
Sporns O, Tononi G, Kotter R. The human connectome: a structural description of the human brain. PLoS
Comput Biol 2005;1:e42. [PubMed: 16201007]
van de Ven V, Formisano E, Prvulovic D, Roeder CH, Linden DE. Functional connectivity as revealed
by spatial independent component analysis of fMRI measurements during rest. Hum Brain Mapp
2004;22:165–178. [PubMed: 15195284]
Vincent JL, Snyder AZ, Fox MD, Shannon BJ, Andrews JR, Raichle ME, Buckner RL. Coherent
spontaneous activity identifies a hippocampal-parietal memory network. J Neurophysiol
2006;96:3517–3531. [PubMed: 16899645]
von Economo C. Eine neue art spezialzellen des lobus cinguli und lobus insulae. Z Ges Neurol Psychiatr
1926;100:706–712.
Seeley et al. Page 13
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Disentangling the task-activation ensemble with task-free fcMRI. A, A spatial working
memory activation map (two-back minus control) was used to select seed ROIs (circled) within
the right frontal lobe. B, Temporal correlations in BOLD signal determined the intrinsic
connectivity patterns with the frontoinsular (red-orange colorbar) and dorsolateral prefrontal
(blue-green colorbar) ROIs (height and extent thresholds, p < 0.001, corrected) during
undirected wakefulness. For display purposes, the t-score color bars in B were adjusted so that
the top of the bar reflects the maximum t score seen outside the seed ROI for each network.
Effortful tasks like the one used in A often coactivate the networks disentangled using a task-
free, intrinsic connectivity analysis in B. These ROI-based maps (B) were used as templates
for subsequent independent components analyses (Fig. 2). Functional images are displayed on
a standard brain template (MNI). On axial and coronal images, the left side of the image
corresponds to the left side of the brain.
Seeley et al. Page 14
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Separable intrinsic connectivity networks revealed by independent component analysis. The
salience network (red-orange colorbar) is anchored by paralimbic anterior cingulate and
frontoinsular cortices and features extensive connectivity with subcortical and limbic
structures. In the executive-control network (blue-green colorbar), the dorsolateral frontal and
parietal neocortices are linked, with more selective subcortical coupling. Functional images
are displayed as in Figure 1. AI, Anterior insula; antTHAL,anterior thalamus; dCN, dorsal
caudate nucleus; dmTHAL, dorsomedial thalamus; DMPFC, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex;
HT, hypothalamus; PAG, periaqueductal gray; Put, putamen; SLEA, sublenticular extended
amygdala; SN/VTA, substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area; TP, temporal pole; VLPFC,
ventrolateral prefrontal cortex.
Seeley et al. Page 15
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Dissociable correlations between intrinsic functional connectivity and individual differences
in emotion and cognition. Within the salience network, functional connectivity in two clusters,
the dACC, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (−32, 44, 16, BA 46 data not shown)correlate
with subject ratings of prescan anxiety (left). Within the executive-control network, functional
connectivity in two clusters, located in the bilateral intraparietal sulcus/superior parietal lobule,
predicts superior Trails B performance (right). Scatterplots depict these correlations
graphically in the larger of the two significant clusters from each map. The y-axes show
averaged voxel z-scores within the dACC or right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) cluster from each
subject’s salience or executive-control component, respectively. The z-scores here reflect the
degree to which the time series of a given region is correlated with the overall network time
series. Note that the correlation between prescan anxiety and dACC z-scores was recalculated
with the outlying data point (anxiety rating of 7) removed and the correlation remained
significant with an r
2
value of 0.74 ( p < 0.0001 for Fisher’s r to z). Functional images are
displayed as in Figure 1.
Seeley et al. Page 16
J Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 May 11.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript