Frontoparietal Control Network: Flexible Thinking and Goal Control
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
The frontoparietal control network (FPCN), also called the frontoparietal network (FPN), is a distributed system of interconnected brain regions, especially in lateral frontal and posterior parietal cortex, involved in organizing cognition and behavior according to current goals. Researchers study it when asking how people follow a new instruction, maintain task rules, redirect attention, compare competing responses, and adjust a plan when the situation changes. The network is best understood through patterns of coordinated activity across multiple regions and their interactions with other brain systems. Marek and Dosenbach (2018) review its functions and the importance of mapping its organization within individuals.
The key scientific idea is adaptive control. A person can use the same perceptual and motor capacities to perform very different activities because control processes configure how information is selected, retained, transformed, and used. In Cole and colleagues' multitask study, connectivity patterns involving the frontoparietal network changed across task contexts in ways consistent with the flexible-hub hypothesis. This finding provides evidence for task-sensitive coordination, while leaving open the precise neuronal and causal mechanisms of that coordination.
What is the frontoparietal control network?
The FPCN is a large-scale functional brain network identified using converging evidence from task-evoked neuroimaging, correlations among brain signals during rest and task performance, individualized brain mapping, and studies of cognitive control. It is commonly represented as distributed cortical areas in the frontal and parietal lobes that show organized functional relationships. Its exact boundaries and subdivisions depend on the atlas, imaging method, analytical choices, individual anatomy, and definition of cognitive control.
A functional network is a description of statistical and physiological relationships among regions. In functional MRI (fMRI), researchers usually estimate its connections from temporal correlations among blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signals. Such a connection is often called functional connectivity. It indicates covariation in measured activity, not necessarily a direct axonal link, a message moving from one area to another, or causal influence. Anatomical pathways, recurrent circuits, neuromodulation, and task context can all contribute to the observed pattern. The foundational research by Vincent et al. (2008) identified a frontoparietal control system using intrinsic functional connectivity, and Yeo et al. (2011) placed large-scale networks into a reproducible cortical mapping framework.
Network membership is therefore a research inference about the organization of brain signals. It is more informative to ask which regions participate, under which circumstances, with which other networks, and how consistently the measurements reproduce than to picture a sharply bounded anatomical organ labeled “executive network.”
Where is the network located in the brain?
Lateral prefrontal regions
Many definitions include portions of dorsolateral and other lateral prefrontal cortex, often described using the middle frontal gyrus, inferior frontal sulcus, and neighboring areas. These regions are implicated in representing instructions, maintaining task-relevant context, applying selection rules, and reorganizing behavior as conditions change. The specific allocation of roles depends on the task and the surrounding circuit. A wider anatomical treatment is available in our prefrontal cortex guide.
Posterior parietal regions
Important posterior nodes commonly occur around the intraparietal sulcus and inferior parietal lobule, including angular and supramarginal territories in some parcellations. These regions contribute to selecting and transforming task-relevant information, coordinating attention and action, and integrating relationships among stimuli, rules, and responses. The term “parietal” covers functionally diverse territories; an individual region may participate in more than one network depending on the parcellation and activity being examined.
Distributed and individually variable organization
Some analyses emphasize additional frontal or temporal components and distinguish multiple frontoparietal subnetworks. Different research traditions use overlapping but nonidentical definitions. The multiple-demand system discussed below contains frontal and parietal territories, with additional dorsomedial and insular-opercular regions in many formulations. Neither label supplies one universally agreed list of nodes.
These distinctions matter because group-average brain maps can obscure boundaries that vary across individuals. Precision-mapping research and the review by Marek and Dosenbach (2018) document this variability. Large datasets are valuable for estimating group principles, but researchers increasingly complement them with extended, high-quality measurements from individual participants.
How the frontoparietal network supports cognitive control
Cognitive control is the capacity to configure thought and action in relation to a goal and the current context. It becomes especially visible when a familiar response is inappropriate, multiple possible actions compete, a rule changes, or a new task must be learned. Cognitive control includes several distinguishable processes. It is a research construct that organizes experiments and theories; it is not a single brain signal.
Representing the goal and the current rule
Suppose someone is instructed to classify numbers by parity rather than by magnitude. The stimuli remain the same, but the rule governing a correct response changes. A goal representation makes the relevant relationship available for subsequent perception, choice, and action. Prefrontal-parietal activity often increases as a task imposes greater demands on maintaining and applying rules. Assem et al. (2020) identified a domain-general cognitive core within finely parcellated human cortex, while showing the importance of specific spatial organization.
Task representations are distributed patterns whose content may be examined through multivariate analyses. They should not be interpreted as a stored sentence in one brain location. A representation can be maintained through changing neural states, interactions among regions, or activity patterns distributed across a population.
Selecting relevant information and suppressing interference
In a Stroop-like task, a printed word may compete with an instruction to identify the ink color. Research associates control demands with activity in frontal, parietal, and cingulate regions, but the size and location of effects depend on stimuli, baseline, trial timing, and the kind of conflict induced. The meta-analysis by Niendam et al. (2012), covering 193 neuroimaging studies and 2,832 participants, supports both shared and more specialized contributions to executive-function tasks.
“Inhibition” should be used precisely: selecting a relevant response, reducing interference, withholding an action, and stopping an initiated action are experimentally different operations. A common activation does not establish a common mechanism for all of them.
Changing rules and shifting task sets
Task switching requires preparing and selecting a new rule and handling interference from a competing one. Frontoparietal regions participate in the reconfiguration of task representations, often together with cingulo-opercular, sensory, motor, and subcortical systems. Researchers typically measure switching costs in accuracy or reaction time, along with fMRI activity or electrophysiological measures. A cost indicates difficulty or added processing demand; it does not isolate a single neural operation.
Working memory and multi-step planning
Working memory supports the temporary maintenance and manipulation of information for ongoing behavior. Within a demanding task, frontoparietal activity can track the requirements for selecting and using information. Some activity patterns distinguish rules or operations even when the stimulus category is controlled. In a 2024 Human Connectome Project analysis, Shashidhara et al. found that multivariate patterns in multiple-demand regions discriminated among task operations; results supported some, but not all, predictions drawn from animal single-neuron findings.
Planning involves maintaining an intended outcome, evaluating intermediate choices, and adjusting when actions alter the environment. These capacities depend on broad interactions across the brain. Frontoparietal findings contribute to the explanation of planning without making the FPCN a solitary seat of reason.
Balancing stability and flexibility
Effective behavior requires keeping a goal stable long enough to complete a task while remaining able to update it when evidence changes. This tension motivates competing computational accounts of proactive and reactive control, gating, context maintenance, task-set reconfiguration, and network-level routing. Network experiments can constrain such models, but they do not yet choose one exclusive explanation of all flexible behavior. Early work by Dosenbach et al. (2007) distinguished networks associated with adaptive, more transient control and stable, sustained task control; subsequent work refined and sometimes revised these assignments.
The flexible-hub hypothesis: what does it claim?
The flexible-hub hypothesis proposes that certain control regions can alter their functional relationships with other systems as different tasks require different information-processing configurations. Think of one task requiring selective visual attention and an ordered motor response, and another requiring a memory rule and delayed choice. The visual, memory, and motor components differ. A possible role of frontoparietal hubs is to help coordinate the currently relevant combination.
Cole et al. (2013) studied participants performing varied tasks and quantified how connections between regions changed across task conditions. The FPN showed relatively high variability of brain-wide functional connectivity; connectivity patterns also contained information about which task was being performed. These are converging observations consistent with flexible hubs. They do not establish that each measured correlation is a direct communication channel or that variability alone causes successful performance.
Flexibility within a stable network architecture
The notion of flexible interactions should be reconciled with findings that much of functional network organization is stable. Gratton et al. (2018) analyzed extensively sampled individuals and found that common group structure and stable individual features accounted for more functional-network organization than task state or day-to-day variation. This result is compatible with meaningful, relatively modest task-dependent changes superimposed on a stable baseline architecture. “Flexible” does not mean the whole connectome is repeatedly rebuilt each time someone changes activities.
Are observed connectivity changes a mechanism?
At present, they are stronger evidence for a task-sensitive network phenotype than a complete mechanistic account. Task-evoked responses, common inputs, vigilance, breathing, motion, filtering, and estimation choices can affect measured correlations. To establish causal routing, researchers need appropriately controlled perturbations, temporally resolved measurements, neural recordings, and behavioral outcomes. Computational models can make more precise predictions about how particular representations and circuit interactions change as control demands shift.
Is the FPCN the same as the multiple-demand network?
Frontoparietal control network, frontoparietal network, central executive network, executive control network, cognitive control network, and multiple-demand network are related labels whose boundaries differ across influential studies. Terms may be used interchangeably in broad explanations, but a research paper's operational definition determines which regions and measurements it actually includes.
The frontoparietal control network usually refers to an intrinsic functional network or set of related networks prominently involving lateral frontal and posterior parietal regions. The multiple-demand (MD) system is especially associated with task-evoked responses across many different demanding cognitive activities and often includes frontal, parietal, dorsomedial frontal, and insular-opercular components. Duncan (2010) developed the MD framework around the organization of mental programs for goal-directed behavior. Assem et al. (2020) then examined the spatial specificity of its domain-general core.
In a practical literature review, verify whether the paper defines FPN by resting-state connectivity, task activations, a named cortical atlas, individualized parcellation, or a network-coupling model. Claiming that a discovery about one operationally defined system automatically applies to all uses of another label would obscure meaningful distinctions.
How the FPCN interacts with other large-scale brain networks
Default mode network: internal thought and goal-directed coordination
The default mode network is associated with various forms of internally oriented cognition, including autobiographical, self-referential, and prospective processing. Its activity commonly differs between rest and externally demanding tasks, although simplistic descriptions of universally opposing “on” and “off” networks miss substantial task variation.
Dixon et al. (2018) found heterogeneity within the frontoparietal control network: different components showed different relationships with default-mode and dorsal-attention systems. This result supports a model in which the FPCN's internal organization matters for integrating thought with task goals. During planning or future-oriented reasoning, cooperation with default-mode regions may be relevant; in demanding external attention, other configurations may be more prominent. Any one state depends on task design and individual differences.
Dorsal attention network: selecting external information
The dorsal attention network is prominently implicated in orienting and selecting task-relevant sensory information. Frontoparietal control regions can interact with it when a rule determines what should be attended to. Evidence for interactions does not require classifying the networks as identical or assigning an absolute top-down chain of command. Regional and subnetwork distinctions are important because some brain atlases divide adjacent frontal and parietal territories differently.
Salience and cingulo-opercular networks: monitoring and sustaining control
Salience-related and cingulo-opercular systems often include anterior insular/opercular and cingulate territories. They have been associated with detecting behaviorally important events, performance monitoring, maintaining task sets, and responding to changes in demands. Their subdivisions and relationships to the FPCN remain active topics of research.
In a human fMRI experiment, Wood and Nee (2023) observed distinctions among frontoparietal and cingulo-opercular subnetworks as participants shifted between different kinds of control. This supplies evidence for functional differentiation and interaction. It does not establish a universal one-way “switch” by which a salience region turns the FPCN on or off.
Sensory, motor, subcortical, and arousal systems
Goal-directed tasks also recruit sensory representation, memory, response selection, motor planning, basal-ganglia loops, thalamic interactions, and arousal regulation. These contributions vary with the demands of the task. The neural-circuits guide explains why complex behavior emerges from interacting circuits rather than an isolated control module. Neurotransmitter systems modulate neural excitability and learning across circuits; none functions as a specific chemical switch for frontoparietal control. For a broader account, see how neurotransmitters affect the brain.
How scientists study the frontoparietal network
Resting-state fMRI and functional connectivity
Resting-state fMRI measures slow variations in the BOLD signal while participants are not undertaking a tightly prescribed task. Researchers estimate temporal relationships among regions, build functional-connectivity matrices, and apply clustering or graph methods to infer communities. These analyses helped establish the FPCN as a recognizable large-scale system. The Yeo et al. atlas provides a prominent example of population-level organization.
The BOLD signal reflects vascular and metabolic consequences of neural activity, with delays and dependencies on neurovascular coupling. Correlated BOLD signals cannot distinguish direct communication from a shared input on their own. Head motion can also create systematic spurious connectivity structure, as Power et al. (2012) demonstrated.
Task-based fMRI and multivariate decoding
Task fMRI compares BOLD responses under deliberately varied demands, such as easy versus difficult working memory or stable versus switching rules. Group-level contrasts can identify regions systematically recruited by control tasks. Multivariate decoding tests whether spatial activity patterns or network relationships statistically distinguish task conditions. A successful decoder establishes information present in measured data under the tested conditions; it does not demonstrate conscious thought reading, neuron-level encoding, or causal necessity. The 2024 Shashidhara et al. study illustrates what such methods can compare.
EEG, MEG, and human electrophysiology
Electroencephalography (EEG) measures voltage differences at the scalp produced chiefly by synchronized neural currents; magnetoencephalography (MEG) measures associated magnetic fields outside the head. They resolve timing on a millisecond scale but have source-localization limits and do not map onto fMRI networks one-to-one. Intracranial electrophysiology samples activity from implanted recording sites in specialized research or clinical settings and can offer more local detail, with constraints from electrode placement and the populations studied.
A 2025 review by Lu examined proposed electrophysiological correlates of the multiple-demand system. It highlighted the difficulty of connecting fMRI-defined systems with oscillatory and aperiodic neural signals. Increases in theta-band activity during control demands, for example, are meaningful experimental observations, but no single scalp frequency serves as a specific, comprehensive “FPCN activity meter.”
Brain lesions and perturbation methods
Studies of individuals with focal brain injury can test whether particular tissue is necessary for aspects of task performance, while accounting for the spread of network disruption, individual differences, and rehabilitation. The review by Szczepanski and Knight (2014) explains the distinctive inferential contribution of prefrontal lesion evidence. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) applies a time-varying magnetic field to influence neural excitability near a stimulation target. Combined with suitable controls and behavioral testing, stimulation can contribute causal evidence, yet stimulation effects are not restricted neatly to one network node and depend on protocol and individual anatomy.
For a broader methodological comparison, consult Brain Imaging Methods: What MRI, fMRI, PET, and EEG Measure.
What does the scientific evidence establish?
The strongest evidence supports a distributed contribution of frontoparietal territories to multiple goal-directed tasks, recurrent patterns of coactivation and functional connectivity, interaction with other networks, and meaningful interindividual variability. It comes from converging task studies, reviews, mapping studies, large-scale meta-analysis, and physiological work. Niendam et al. (2012), Cole et al. (2013), and Marek and Dosenbach (2018) address complementary levels of that evidence.
More specific claims about exactly how frontoparietal nodes route information, whether one subnetwork initiates changes in another, and how electrophysiological mechanisms implement control remain model-dependent or preliminary. The literature contains multiple ways of dividing the same cortical territory, and some task activations overlap with networks defined using resting-state data. A particular network assignment should therefore be evaluated within the methods that generated it.
Causal evidence from injuries and perturbation can strengthen mechanistic claims when interpreted in the context of circuit effects. However, no single lesion, stimulation target, or imaging contrast explains the entire range of human cognitive flexibility.
Development, aging, and individual differences
Cognitive control changes across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, and it can vary with learning, expertise, sleep, stress, and health. Network organization also varies among individuals. These patterns suggest that goal-directed behavior depends on experience and physiological context, as well as relatively stable aspects of neural organization. The precision-mapping literature warns that a population-average boundary may be a poor anatomical description for a particular person.
Group differences are usually distributions with substantial overlap. A lower average connectivity estimate in one sample should not be translated into a statement that each member of that group has deficient control. Age-related findings are also vulnerable to motion, vascular differences, and task-performance confounds; appropriate comparisons require careful design rather than assuming identical measurement properties across populations.
The FPCN and mental health: what can be concluded?
Researchers examine frontoparietal connectivity and task responses in studies of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, schizophrenia, and other clinical conditions. Some studies report average group differences, but the direction, localization, reproducibility, and specificity of these findings vary with diagnosis, symptom dimension, medication, task demands, imaging protocol, and sample composition. Marek and Dosenbach (2018) discuss the relevance of this network to psychopathology as a research direction.
A network finding is distinct from a clinical symptom, diagnostic criterion, validated individual biomarker, or treatment target. A brain scan showing an unusual frontoparietal connectivity value cannot by itself diagnose ADHD, depression, or another mental disorder. Imaging and EEG research may help construct better models and hypotheses, but ordinary individual clinical assessment is based on established diagnostic procedures and relevant history.
Claims that consumer brain training, meditation, supplements, neurofeedback, or stimulation will “strengthen the executive network” need intervention-specific, controlled evidence and clinically meaningful outcomes. Brain activation changes can accompany learning without demonstrating a broad improvement in general intelligence, mental health, or everyday executive function. Therapeutic neurostimulation should be evaluated under its specific clinical indication and safety framework, rather than inferred from a network diagram.
Major misconceptions about the frontoparietal network
“It is the single control center of the brain”
The brain supports adaptive behavior through distributed, interacting circuits. FPCN regions are important nodes in that organization, but the architecture includes numerous other cortical and subcortical contributors. The existence of a named network indicates a reproducible organizational pattern, not exclusive ownership of thinking.
“More FPCN activity always means better thinking”
Stronger BOLD responses can reflect increased demand, altered strategy, inefficiency, compensation, or numerous other factors. Behavioral performance and experimental conditions are essential for interpretation. The same person may recruit a network differently as a task becomes practiced.
“The executive network and default mode network cannot operate together”
Such an absolute opposition contradicts findings of heterogeneous FPCN subnetworks and context-dependent integration. Dixon et al. (2018) directly examined distinct frontoparietal relationships with default and attention systems.
“Functional connectivity maps show which neurons send commands”
A BOLD correlation is a statistical relationship between time series. It cannot, without additional methods and assumptions, provide synapse-level connections, signal direction, or a single causal controller.
“A frontoparietal scan measures someone’s intelligence or self-control”
Population-level associations are not equivalent to an accurate individual assessment. Neither a single FPCN connectivity score nor a pattern of activity is a validated general-purpose test of someone's intelligence, willpower, diagnosis, or future behavior.
Why the network matters beyond the laboratory
The FPCN supplies a useful bridge between cognitive theories of goal pursuit and empirical descriptions of large-scale brain organization. Its study helps explain why rule changes, multitasking, novel instructions, and conflicting demands recruit interacting systems. This knowledge can guide experimental design and generate better hypotheses about training, development, neurological injury, and clinical phenomena.
Practical reasoning should remain grounded in the demands of a person's environment. If interruptions repeatedly disrupt a complex activity, reducing competing demands can make goal maintenance easier, whether or not a study has measured that individual's frontoparietal connectivity. Such a recommendation follows ordinary principles of task design and attention management, not a promise to directly tune a named brain network.
The broader discipline is discussed in Cognitive Neuroscience: How the Brain Supports Thinking and Memory. For emotion-related interaction among brain networks, see Neural Basis of Emotion: Brain Networks, Learning, and Regulation.
Frequently asked questions
What is the frontoparietal control network in simple terms?
It is a set of interconnected frontal and parietal brain regions that often participates when a person uses goals and rules to guide thought and action. Researchers study how its activity patterns and interactions change across tasks. Its function is distributed and depends on the wider brain.
What does the frontoparietal network do?
It is associated with maintaining and updating task rules, selecting relevant information, coordinating working-memory demands, and adapting responses when circumstances change. These are overlapping cognitive processes supported by interactions with other networks.
Is the frontoparietal network the central executive network?
Many publications use “central executive network,” “executive control network,” or “frontoparietal control network” for overlapping systems. Specific region lists and definitions vary, so the network name should be interpreted according to the atlas and measurement used in the study.
Is the frontoparietal control network the same as the multiple-demand system?
They overlap substantially, but the multiple-demand system is frequently defined from activation across diverse demanding tasks, whereas FPCN is often defined from functional connectivity. Their regional coverage is not always identical.
Is the FPCN active when someone is resting?
Correlated low-frequency BOLD signals can identify its organization during rest. That means its functional relationships can be studied in a resting-state scan; it does not mean the person is necessarily performing deliberate executive control at that moment.
How is it different from the default mode network?
Default-mode regions are often associated with forms of internally oriented cognition, whereas frontoparietal systems are commonly recruited by demanding task control. Their interactions depend on the specific thought process and on the organization of frontoparietal subnetworks.
Can damage to the network affect decision-making or flexible thinking?
Damage involving frontal, parietal, or connected pathways can affect aspects of executive functioning. The consequences depend on location, extent, network disconnection, individual history, and compensatory processes. A lesion does not produce one universal profile.
Does ADHD mean the frontoparietal network is damaged?
ADHD is a clinical neurodevelopmental disorder defined through established diagnostic criteria and assessment. Research examines group differences in control networks, but those associations do not establish structural damage in every individual and do not make network imaging a stand-alone diagnostic test.
Can meditation, brain training, or TMS improve FPCN function?
Some interventions have measurable effects on task performance or neural signals under particular study conditions. Whether an intervention produces reliable, lasting, transferable improvements depends on the specific program, population, outcomes, controls, and replication. TMS has protocol-specific effects and clinical indications; a generic claim of “activating the FPCN” is insufficient.
Can an fMRI scan prove which brain network caused a thought?
No. fMRI measures BOLD responses related indirectly to neural activity. Task contrasts and functional connectivity can support hypotheses about involved systems, while causal inference generally requires converging behavioral, lesion, stimulation, or other experimental evidence. Poldrack (2006) explains why reverse inference from an activation pattern to a particular mental process must be tested carefully.
Related Articles
References
Assem, M., Glasser, M. F., Van Essen, D. C., & Duncan, J. (2020). A domain-general cognitive core defined in multimodally parcellated human cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 30(8), 4361–4380. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa023
Cole, M. W., Reynolds, J. R., Power, J. D., Repovs, G., Anticevic, A., & Braver, T. S. (2013). Multi-task connectivity reveals flexible hubs for adaptive task control. Nature Neuroscience, 16, 1348–1355. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3470
Dixon, M. L., et al. (2018). Heterogeneity within the frontoparietal control network and its relationship to the default and dorsal attention networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(7), E1598–E1607. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715766115
Dosenbach, N. U. F., et al. (2007). Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(26), 11073–11078. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704320104
Duncan, J. (2010). The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: Mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(4), 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004
Gratton, C., et al. (2018). Functional brain networks are dominated by stable group and individual factors, not cognitive or daily variation. Neuron, 98(2), 439–452.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.035
Lu, R. (2025). Linking the multiple-demand cognitive control system to human electrophysiological activity. Neuropsychologia, 210, 109096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2025.109096
MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288(5472), 1835–1838. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.288.5472.1835
Marek, S., & Dosenbach, N. U. F. (2018). The frontoparietal network: Function, electrophysiology, and importance of individual precision mapping. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 20(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2018.20.2/smarek
Niendam, T. A., et al. (2012). Meta-analytic evidence for a superordinate cognitive control network subserving diverse executive functions. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(2), 241–268. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0083-5
Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.004
Power, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2012). Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. NeuroImage, 59(3), 2142–2154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018
Shashidhara, S., Assem, M., Glasser, M. F., & Duncan, J. (2024). Task and stimulus coding in the multiple-demand network. Cerebral Cortex, 34(7), bhae278. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhae278
Szczepanski, S. M., & Knight, R. T. (2014). Insights into human behavior from lesions to the prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 83(5), 1002–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.011
Vincent, J. L., et al. (2008). Evidence for a frontoparietal control system revealed by intrinsic functional connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100(6), 3328–3342. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90355.2008
Wood, J. L., & Nee, D. E. (2023). Cingulo-opercular subnetworks motivate frontoparietal subnetworks during distinct cognitive control demands. Journal of Neuroscience, 43(7), 1225–1237. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1314-22.2022
Yeo, B. T. T., et al. (2011). The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 106(3), 1125–1165. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00338.2011