Heterogeneity Within the Frontoparietal Control Network and its Relationship to the Default and Dorsal Attention Networks

Abstract

The frontoparietal control network (FPCN) plays a central role in executive control. It has been predominantly viewed as a unitary domain general system. Here, we examined patterns of FPCN functional connectivity (FC) across multiple conditions of varying cognitive demands, in order to test for FPCN heterogeneity. We identified two distinct subsystems within the FPCN based on hierarchical clustering and machine learning classification analyses of within-FPCN FC patterns. These two FPCN subsystems exhibited distinct patterns of FC the default network (DN) and the dorsal attentional network (DAN). This 2-fold FPCN differentiation was observed across four independent data sets, across 9 different conditions (rest and 8 tasks), as well as in meta-analytic co-activation patterns. The extent of FPCN differentiation varied across conditions, suggesting flexible adaptation to task demands. These findings reveal a flexible and heterogeneous FPCN organization that may in part emerge from separable DN and DAN processing streams.

The neural basis of motivational influences on cognitive control

“…The aforementioned regions have well‐established roles in supporting cognitive control and adaptive behavior via top‐down modulation of sensory and motor processing (Cole et al, ; Dosenbach et al, ; Duncan, ; Miller & Cohen, ). The IFS and IPS/aIPL are part of the FPCN (Dixon et al, ; Power et al, ; Spreng et al, ; Vincent et al, ; Yeo et al, ) and contribute to working memory and the flexible representation of task rules (Badre & D'Esposito, ; Brass, Derrfuss, Forstmann, & von Cramon, ; Bunge, ; De Baene, Kuhn, & Brass, ; Derrfuss, Brass, Neumann, & von Cramon, ; Dixon & Christoff, ; Dumontheil, Thompson, & Duncan, ; Koechlin et al, ; Wallis, Anderson, & Miller, ). Neurons in these regions exhibit dynamic coding properties, signaling any currently relevant information (Duncan, ; Stokes et al, ), and rapidly updating their pattern of global functional connectivity according to task demands (Cole et al, ; Fornito, Harrison, Zalesky, & Simons, ; Gao & Lin, ; Spreng et al, ).…”

“…While early work identified the prefrontal cortex (PFC) as a critical neural substrate (Desimone & Duncan, ; Duncan, ; Fuster, ; Miller & Cohen, ; Passingham & Wise, ; Stuss & Knight, ; Watanabe, ), it soon became clear that a much broader network of regions support cognitive control, including posterior parietal, lateral temporal, insular, and mid‐cingulate cortices, as well as parts of the basal ganglia. Together, these regions are often referred to as the multiple demand (MD) system, although recent network neuroscience approaches suggest that they may form at least two distinct functional networks, known as the frontoparietal control network (FPCN), and the salience/cingulo‐opercular network (Cole et al, ; Cole, Repovs, & Anticevic, ; Cole & Schneider, ; Crittenden, Mitchell, & Duncan, ; Dixon et al, ; Dosenbach et al, ; Duncan, ; Mitchell et al, ; Seeley et al, ; Spreng, Stevens, Chamberlain, Gilmore, & Schacter, ; Vincent, Kahn, Snyder, Raichle, & Buckner, ). Cognitive control regions flexibly represent a variety of task‐relevant information and exert a top‐down influence on other regions, guiding activation in accordance with current task demands (Badre & D'Esposito, ; Braver, ; Buschman & Miller, ; Crowe et al, ; Desimone & Duncan, ; Dixon, Fox, & Christoff, ; Duncan, ; Egner & Hirsch, ; Miller & Cohen, ; Tomita, Ohbayashi, Nakahara, Hasegawa, & Miyashita, ).…”

Posttraumatic stress disorder and the social brain: Affect‐related disruption of the default and mirror networks

“…VAN is involved in bottom‐up attention and includes TPJ and pIFG (Corbetta, Patel, & Shulman, ; Vossel et al, ). FPCN includes parts of PCC and is thought to facilitate attentional control by mediating activity between DMN, DAN, and other networks (Dixon et al, ; Leech, Braga, & Sharp, ). Moreover, whole‐brain analyses revealed PTSD‐related effects in one region wholly outside our a priori ROIs: the dlPFC, a central node of DAN and FPCN (Dixon et al, ).…”

“…FPCN includes parts of PCC and is thought to facilitate attentional control by mediating activity between DMN, DAN, and other networks (Dixon et al, ; Leech, Braga, & Sharp, ). Moreover, whole‐brain analyses revealed PTSD‐related effects in one region wholly outside our a priori ROIs: the dlPFC, a central node of DAN and FPCN (Dixon et al, ). Our results align with numerous reports of affect‐evoked hyperactivation in DAN, VAN, and FPCN in PTSD (Block & Liberzon, ; Fani et al, ; Morey et al, ; Pannu Hayes et al, ; White, Costanzo, Blair, & Roy, ).…”

Competitive Frontoparietal Interactions Mediate Implicit Inferences

“…Here, enhanced internally driven processes could dampen typical parietal alpha power decreases due to functional competition (Fox et al, 2005). This push-pull hypothesis seems to be supported by the recruitment of prefrontal regions, strongly associated with the evaluation of internally generated information (Christoff and Gabrieli, 2000;Schuck et al, 2017;Dixon et al, 2018). Further, a seemingly opposite pattern was observed in the explicit condition, when attention could be externally oriented (Figs.…”