Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 21;41(12):3266–3283. doi: 10.1002/hbm.25014

TABLE 3.

Regions with unique connectivity with each subregion, by finding the overlap of each cluster contrasted with all other clusters

Region Unique clusters
Cluster 1 Right insula (32 voxels; 38, 21, 2)
Cluster 2

Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (13 voxels; −48, 29, −15)

Left middle temporal gyrus (9 voxels: −57, 1, –20)

Frontal pole/Fp2 (3 voxels: 6 64 10)

Left inferior parietal lobule (PGa: 2 voxels; −55, −57, 28)

Posterior cingulate cortex (2 voxels; 4, 47, 27)

Cluster 3

Left superior frontal gyrus (4 voxels; −18, 32, 40)

Posterior cingulate cortex (2 voxels; −5, 47, 30)

Cluster 4 Possible hypothalamus (9 voxels; 4, −7, −8)
Cluster 5

Left superior frontal gyrus (28 voxels; −9, 43, 41)

Left central orbitofrontal gyrus (13 voxels; −39, 39, −15)

Cluster 6

Thalamus (prefrontal/temporal‐connected regions: 223 voxels; −4, −18, 7)

Right caudate (95 voxels; 8, 8, 5)

Right pallidum (28 voxels; 20, 0, −6)

Note: Clusters 4 and 6, and Cluster 2 parietal were not strongly corroborated by a similar rsfMRI analysis (p < .001), but other regions were. Note that the hypothalamus region identified by Cluster 4 is on the very edge of the raw Cluster 4 MACM image, rather than being a distinct activation. Consequently, this may reflect an artifact of smoothing.

Abbreviations: MACM, meta‐analytic connectivity modeling; rsfMRI, resting‐state fMRI.