To understand why people become addicted to alcohol or smoking, it is important to look at how the brains of people who use these substances may be different than those who abstain. Many studies show that substance use activates the reward systems in the brain via a chemical called dopamine. Changes or differences in parts of the brain that control decision-making and restraint also have been implicated in substance use.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is one tool scientists can use to explore such differences. It can measure how well different parts of the brain are communicating with each other by measuring their activity when a person is at rest. The patterns of activity reveal which parts of the brain are working closely together or have high functional connectivity and which parts are less well connected, or have low functional connectivity.

Cheng, Rolls et al. measured the functional connectivity between different parts of the brain in people who smoke and people who drink alcohol. Smokers had a low overall functional connectivity between brain regions. Specifically, they had weaker connections involving two brain regions that help people change or stop a behavior, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and inferior frontal gyrus. These differences may make people more impulsive and less able to resist smoking. The stimulating effects of nicotine may enhance communication between different parts of the brain, so people also may use it to overcome some underlying communication deficits. Those who drink alcohol had high overall functional connectivity. Reward-related systems, including the medial orbitofrontal cortex and the cingulate cortex, were especially strongly connected. This may make them more sensitive to the rewarding aspects of drinking, or more impulsive.

To confirm their results, Cheng, Rolls et al. analyzed fMRI data from another study. These showed that the characteristic differences in brain connectivity were already present in 14-year olds who would go on to drink or smoke at age 19. This suggests that these functional connectivity differences in the brain make people more likely to smoke or drink.

Recent statistics have shown not only the widespread use of cigarettes and alcohol, but also the co-occurrence of these high risk behaviors. Although dopamine mechanisms in the basal ganglia have been implicated in addiction there is also considerable evidence for cortical, especially prefrontal cortical, involvement (Ersche et al., 2011; Goldstein and Volkow, 2011; Ersche et al., 2012; Ersche et al., 2013). For example, a voxel-based morphometry (VBM) study found that smokers exhibited reduced gray matter volumes and gray matter densities in frontal regions including prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and anterior cingulate gyrus, as compared with non-smokers (Wang et al., 2015). Resting state functional connectivity differences involving the prefrontal cortex and insula have also been described in smokers (Fedota and Stein, 2015; Yuan et al., 2016; Bi et al., 2017; Sutherland and Stein, 2018). A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study found that increased ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activation during ‘relaxing’ trials was correlated with high alcohol cue–induced and stress-induced craving in early recovering alcohol-dependent patients (Seo et al., 2013). These neuroimaging studies in substance use behaviors suggest that the prefrontal cortex plays a key role in such behaviors.

The high levels of comorbidity in using cigarettes and alcohol demonstrated by a wealth of epidemiological and genetic data (Farrell et al., 2001; Agrawal and Lynskey, 2006) makes it important to consider the neurobiological commonalities and differences associated with these two drugs, especially when they are consumed together. Thus, King et al. (2010) found that consumption of a moderately intoxicating oral dose of alcohol increased ratings of the desire to smoke, and moreover that alcohol amplified ventral striatum reactivity to appetitive cues associated with smoking in young individuals who tend to use cigarettes in the context of alcohol intoxication.

Most studies have used relatively small sample sizes and focused on brain regions rather than brain circuits identified with functional connectivity. Further, common and distinct connectivity features underlying the use of different substances such as nicotine and alcohol have not been fully explored with large numbers of participants (Zhu et al., 2017; Sutherland and Stein, 2018). In this study, we examined whole-brain functional connectivity (i.e. not limited by particular hypotheses and therefore unbiased) in groups using nicotine, or alcohol, or both, based on a large sample size (831 subjects from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) (and cross-validated by another 1176 subjects from the IMAGEN collaboration as described in the Materials and methods) with resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. The aim was to identify shared and distinct patterns of different functional connectivity in smokers and drinkers in a sufficiently large sample to ensure sufficient statistical power to provide robust findings on associations between functional connectivity and smoking and drinking. Moreover, by including assessment of smoking and drinking in the same study, we aimed to provide robust evidence on whether there were differences in functional connectivity in smokers and drinkers. We also investigated aspects of substance use and impulsive behavior that might relate to the changes in neural connectivity, and that might provide information about the causation and aetiology of substance use.

Smokers and drinkers had contrasting patterns of cortical functional connectivity involving the orbitofrontal cortex. Smokers relative to non-smokers exhibited reduced functional connectivity involving the lateral orbitofrontal cortex which is implicated in stopping and changing behavior and thus to impulsive-compulsive disorders, and in related areas including the inferior frontal gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, precuneus, and supramarginal gyrus (Figure 2A). By contrast, high drinkers relative to low drinkers had higher functional connectivity in networks including the medial orbitofrontal cortex (bilaterally though more on the left) which is involved in reward processing, and in related structures including the anterior cingulate cortex, parahippocampal cortex, supramarginal gyrus, insula, and superior temporal gyrus. In addition, the mean functional connectivity across the whole brain was lower in smokers than non-smokers. In contrast, mean functional connectivity across the whole brain was higher in high drinkers than low drinkers. The differences in both the overall and the identified links were correlated with the amount of smoking or drinking. For both the smoking and drinking, the differences in overall functional connectivity were correlated with increased impulsivity. These findings with the HCP dataset were cross-validated with the IMAGEN dataset. In addition, analysis of the IMAGEN dataset showed that for the significantly different links between smokers and non-smokers identified in the HCP dataset, those links were lower at age 14 in the IMAGEN dataset in those who became smokers at 19 (Figure 7D). An implication is that the low functional connectivities may not simply be produced by smoking, but may instead contribute to the tendency to smoke. The same was found for the global functional connectivity (Figure 7A). For drinking, analysis of the IMAGEN dataset showed that for the significantly different links between high drinkers and low drinkers identified in the HCP dataset, those links were higher at age 14 in the IMAGEN dataset in those who became high drinkers at 19 (Figure 7B,E) for females, though that effect was not significant in the male participants.

The low functional connectivity in smokers relative to non-smokers especially involved the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (Brodmann area 47/12) which is implicated in stopping and changing behavior, including when reward is not received (Kringelbach and Rolls, 2003; Robbins, 2007; Grabenhorst and Rolls, 2011; Rolls, 2014; Rolls, 2016), and when there is an instruction to stop in the stop-signal task (Deng et al., 2017). This reduced connectivity also involved the inferior frontal gyrus, pars opercularis (BA 44) and pars triangularis (BA45). Further, damage to the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (Berlin et al., 2004; Rolls, 2014; Rolls, 2016) and to the right inferior frontal gyrus (Aron et al., 2014) produces impulsive behavior (measured for example in the stop-signal task), where impulsive behavior can be considered as behavior not directly inhibited by non-reward or punishment feedback signals (Rolls, 2014; Rolls, 2017). Consistent with this, lower functional connectivity involving the lateral orbitofrontal cortex in the present study was related to increased impulsiveness as measured by the delay discounting score (Figure 6). An implication is that smokers may smoke in part because of increased impulsiveness and reduced sensitivity to non-reward and punishment associated with reduced functional connectivity of the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and adjacent inferior temporal gyrus. Consistently, we found that the delay discounting score (DDS) was positively correlated with the strength of many of the lateral orbitofrontal cortex links (in the HCP dataset). Thus high FC of the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is correlated with low impulsivity.

The increased functional connectivity in drinkers relative to non-drinkers involved the medial orbitofrontal cortex which is involved in reward processing (Grabenhorst and Rolls, 2011; Rolls, 2014; Rolls, 2017) and structures to which it is connected including the anterior cingulate cortex, parahippocampal cortex, supramarginal gyrus, and superior temporal gyrus. We found that the delay discounting score (DDS) was negatively correlated with the strength of many of the medial orbitofrontal cortex links (in the HCP dataset). Thus high FC of the many medial OFC links was correlated with high impulsivity, which correlated in turn with the amount of drinking. In rats, steeper delay discounting (interpreted as greater impulsivity) is produced by lesions of the lateral OFC, and reduced discounting by lesions of the medial OFC (Mar et al., 2011), possibly homologous regions to those in the primate brain, suggesting a similar opponency of control over impulsivity by these prefrontal cortex regions to that found in the present investigation in humans.

In the short term just after administration, alcohol increases impulsivity and decreases behavioral inhibition (Smith et al., 2014) (and increases neurophysiological inhibition in some brain areas) (Stephens et al., 2017). The mechanism for the increase in impulsivity produced by alcohol may include reduced activity in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex, which tends to have activations reciprocally related to those of the medial orbitofrontal cortex (O'Doherty et al., 2001; Kringelbach and Rolls, 2003; Rolls, 2016; Rolls et al., 2018a). The fact that both drinkers and smokers exhibited greater impulsive choice is consistent with a possible causal role for impulsivity in either the initiation of drinking or smoking or else its exacerbation, as well as other behaviors associated with impulsivity, including aggression in the case of alcohol consumption (Garofalo and Wright, 2017).

To check the main findings of this investigation, and to control for possible differences in the comparison groups, we directly compared functional connectivity in drinkers and smokers. The hypotheses were that functional connectivity involving the lateral orbitofrontal cortex would be smaller in smokers than drinkers; that functional connectivity involving the medial orbitofrontal cortex would be greater in drinkers than in smokers; and that the mean functional connectivity would be higher in drinkers than non-smokers. All these hypotheses were confirmed by the direct comparison of drinkers – smokers in the Results section (see Figure 4).

Using a separate dataset (IMAGEN (Schumann et al., 2010)) we cross-validated the findings obtained with the HCP dataset. In addition, analysis of the IMAGEN dataset showed that there was an association between the low connectivity in smoking at age 14 (when participants were not smoking) and whether at age 19 individuals were smoking. This association was found for both the global functional connectivities (Figure 7A,B) and the specifically different functional connectivities (Figure 7D,E). A similar relation was found in drinkers, namely that there was an association between the high functional connectivitities at 14 and wherher an individual would be in the high drinking group at age 19. This was significant for females, but not for males. An implication is that the differences in brain functional connectivities identified in this investigation may play a causal role in who will become smokers or drinkers. It will be of interest in future to assess further whether the differences in functional connectivity described here in smokers and drinkers cause the smoking or drinking, for example in research on alcohol drinking endophenotypes or smoking endophenotypes (Ray et al., 2010; Ducci and Goldman, 2012). It is of course also a possibility that drinking may by increasing impulsivity exacerbate the drinking.

The low functional connectivity that we describe here in smokers in frontal and associated areas may be reflected in the hypofrontality that has previously been described in smokers and has been associated in genome-wide association studies with single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the human CHRNA5 gene, encoding the α5 nAcetylcholine receptor subunit, that increase the risks for both smoking and schizophrenia (Barch et al., 2001; Hong et al., 2010; Tobacco and Tobacco and Genetics Consortium, 2010); Schizophrenia Working Group of the Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, 2014; Koukouli et al., 2017). So it is possible that smokers self-administer nicotine which acting on this cholinergic receptor may increase cortical neuronal firing, which stabilizes the activity of prefrontal attractor networks, making them more efficient at cognitive control tasks involved in executive function. This has been proposed for the smoking in schizophrenia (Rolls et al., 2008). Thus, we suggest that lower initial whole brain FC in smokers may encourage them to enhance their functional connectivity and hence the functioning of the neural circuitry implicated in cognitive control; smoking can then be seen as a form of ‘self-medication’ which optimizes their behavior.

For female drinkers there was also an association between high functional connectivity at age 14 and who would be in the high drinking group at age 19. In this case a possible account for the drinking is that it is related to increased functional connectivity or sensitivity of medial orbitofrontal cortex and related reward circuitry, which makes the alcohol more rewarding, and which may also because of the increased sensitivity to reward produce some increase in reward-related impulsivity (Whelan et al., 2012). The acute effects of the alcohol may themselves reduce behavioral inhibition and increase the drinking, thus exacerbating the drinking (Whelan et al., 2014).

Figures 1D and 7C show a negative correlation between the t values for all the connectivities in the brain for drinkers vs smokers. This may be related to the fact that high values of t for the functional connectivity relate to high drinking, and low values t for the functional connectivity relate to smoking. Thus the negative correlation reflects whether individuals are more likely to perform an action of either smoking or drinking. This reflects the fact that in this dataset those who smoke also are more likely to drink. A common underlying factor might be impulsivity.

We note that although there were overall higher in FC in drinkers, and lower in smokers, to place this in context, FCs were also smaller in males than females in this dataset in smokers and drinkers (Figure 1—figure supplement 4). Accordingly, whilst we would not wish to over-interpret the differences in global mean FC in drinking and smoking, the negative correlation between all FCs in drinking and smoking shown in Figure 1E is very suggestive that there is indeed complementarity of the differences found in drinkers and smokers. An interpretation is that smoking and drinking are related to opposite differences in some of many of the links involved. Examples from this investigation are that medial orbitofrontal cortex links are decreased in smokers, but increased in drinkers; and vice versa for lateral orbitofrontal cortex links.

The differences in functional connectivity described in this investigation were not due to any obvious possible confounding factors such as gender, ethnicity, level of education, marijuana use, or basic brain structure (volume of gray and white matter), which were regressed out of the analysis.

The use of resting state fMRI is useful for this type of investigation as it does not require task performance that might differ between participants, and such studies can for example predict behavior (Rosenberg et al., 2016) and task performance (Tavor et al., 2016) in different individuals. Structure based morphological comparisons for drinkers and smokers have been performed, but do not necessarily relate closely to what is found with functional investigations, as parts of the brain may have different physiology without much gross anatomical difference.

Possible limitations of this investigation are that linear analyses were used. It is also important to stress that all participants were healthy adults, and that the levels of smoking and drinking exhibited were not directly associated with diagnoses of substance dependence, although they may be relevant to these disorders. Thus the effect size of this study involving the normal use of alcohol and cigarettes could be lower than in a case/control study. But the design of this study, use of individuals in the general population, enable this investigation to have impact on public health, since the use of substances for most of the smokers and drinkers was within a normal range, and we could identify these changes by the use of two large-scale datasets. Although the current study was based on the general population, the findings are in general consistent with previous studies based on clinical populations. For example, chronic nicotine exposure associated with lower functional connectivity was reported in a number of studies (Hong et al., 2009; Weiland et al., 2015). In addition, many studies report that the orbitofrontal cortex, the key region identified in current study, play an important role in the neurobiological mechanisms of addiction (Lucantonio et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2015; Koob and Volkow, 2016). However, the results described here were obtained on populations from the general community, and do not necessarily apply to heavy smokers or drinkers. Moreover, we demonstrate with the IMAGEN dataset that the effect size is sufficient that there is a relation between the brain functional connectivities that we identify at age 14 and who will smoke at age 19. This is good evidence that the effects described in this paper are meaningful, in that the functional connectivity at age 14 can be related to what will happen in terms of smoking and drinking five years later. Additionally, we have removed several possible confounders that may distinguish the two groups, but it might be useful in future investigations to investigate the relation of depression to smoking and drinking. Another possible limitation is that impulsivity was assessed by delay discounting, and it would be of interest to examine the relation to other measures of impulsivity. Another possible area in which future research might extend the findings reported here is that we focused on the amount of drinking using the measure ‘drinking amount per drinking day’, as the relation between the frequency of drinking and the functional connectivity was complex. But this enables us to make an interesting point. The amount of alcohol consumed on a drinking day, the ‘amount’ measure, may well be related to how rewarding the consumption of the alcohol is. Once started on a drinking day, an individual in the High Amount drinking group tends to have more, and this is consistent with the reward value being high. That in turn is consistent with the higher functional connectivity of the medial orbitofrontal cortex found in the High Amount drinkers in this investigation, and with the evidence that the medial orbitofrontal cortex contains a representation of reward value (Rolls, 2014; Rolls, 2017; Rolls, 2018b). Another possible limitation of the drinking analysis is that the control group was a low drinking group rather than a non-drinker group. The reason for this choice was that only 55 participants did not drink any alcohol in the past 12 months, which would have resulted in too small a sample size.

As shown in Figure 4, most of the links were lower in the group that both smokes and drinks. One explanation is that the effect size for the comparison between non-smokers and regular smokers is higher than the effect size for the comparison between low-drinkers and high drinkers.

In conclusion, we have related for the first time reduced functional connectivity involving the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and related inferior frontal gyrus to smoking. We interpret the smoking as being related to the increased impulsivity and decreased behavioral inhibition. In addition, smokers have globally lower functional connectivity. A possible interpretation is that smokers may self-administer nicotine in order to increase brain functional connectivity and thereby attention and alertness. We also describe for the first time that drinkers have increased functional connectivity of the medial orbitofrontal cortex, a reward area, and globally increased functional connectivity as well as impulsive behavior. An interpretation is that there is a role in drinking of increased reward sensitivity implemented in the medial orbitofrontal cortex. The increased impulsivity in drinkers may also be related to increased reward processing in the medial orbitofrontal cortex and its connected areas. These differences in functional connectivity may play a causal role, as shown by analyses showing that there was an association between smoking or drinking at age 19 and the functional connectivities at age 14 of individuals who at 14 are not smoking or drinking. In both smokers and drinkers, the increased impulsivity may exacerbate substance use. These findings open the way for further investigations of the extent to which these differences contribute to the substance use, or are caused by it. In any case, we note that there may be many factors that influence smoking and drinking, though we have revealed some of the possible underlying factors and brain mechanisms in this investigation.

The dataset used in this study and custom code is available at Dryad.

1. 1. Cheng W

   (2018) Dryad Digital Repository

   Data from: Decreased brain connectivity in smoking contrasts with increased connectivity in drinking.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.736t01r

1. 1. Agrawal A
   2. Lynskey MT

   (2006) The genetic epidemiology of cannabis use, abuse and dependence

   Addiction 101:801–812.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01399.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Aron AR
   2. Robbins TW
   3. Poldrack RA

   (2014) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on

   Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18:177–185.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Barch DM
   2. Carter CS
   3. Braver TS
   4. Sabb FW
   5. MacDonald A
   6. Noll DC
   7. Cohen JD

   (2001) Selective deficits in prefrontal cortex function in medication-naive patients with schizophrenia

   Archives of General Psychiatry 58:280–288.

   https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.58.3.280

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Berlin HA
   2. Rolls ET
   3. Kischka U

   (2004) Impulsivity, time perception, emotion and reinforcement sensitivity in patients with orbitofrontal cortex lesions

   Brain 127:1108–1126.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh135

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bi Y
   2. Yuan K
   3. Guan Y
   4. Cheng J
   5. Zhang Y
   6. Li Y
   7. Yu D
   8. Qin W
   9. Tian J

   (2017) Altered resting state functional connectivity of anterior insula in young smokers

   Brain Imaging and Behavior 11:155–165.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-016-9511-z

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Chao-Gan Y
   2. Yu-Feng Z

   (2010) DPARSF: A MATLAB Toolbox for "Pipeline" data analysis of resting-state fMRI

   Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 4:13.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2010.00013

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cheng W
   2. Rolls ET
   3. Qiu J
   4. Liu W
   5. Tang Y
   6. Huang CC
   7. Wang X
   8. Zhang J
   9. Lin W
   10. Zheng L
   11. Pu J
   12. Tsai SJ
   13. Yang AC
   14. Lin CP
   15. Wang F
   16. Xie P
   17. Feng J

   (2016) Medial reward and lateral non-reward orbitofrontal cortex circuits change in opposite directions in depression

   Brain 139:3296–3309.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww255

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cox RW

   (1996) AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages

   Computers and Biomedical Research 29:162–173.

   https://doi.org/10.1006/cbmr.1996.0014

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Deng W
   2. Rolls ET
   3. Ji X
   4. Robbins TW
   5. Banaschewski T
   6. Bokde ALW
   7. Bromberg U
   8. Buechel C
   9. Desrivières S
   10. Conrod P
   11. Flor H
   12. Frouin V
   13. Gallinat J
   14. Garavan H
   15. Gowland P
   16. Heinz A
   17. Ittermann B
   18. Martinot J-L
   19. Lemaitre H
   20. Nees F
   21. Papadopoulos Orfanos D
   22. Poustka L
   23. Smolka MN
   24. Walter H
   25. Whelan R
   26. Schumann G
   27. Feng J

   (2017) Separate neural systems for behavioral change and for emotional responses to failure during behavioral inhibition

   Human Brain Mapping 6:3527–3537.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23607

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Ducci F
    2. Goldman D

    (2012) The genetic basis of addictive disorders

    Psychiatric Clinics of North America 35:495–519.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2012.03.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Erlikhman G
    2. Caplovitz GP

    (2017) Decoding information about dynamically occluded objects in visual cortex

    NeuroImage 146:778–788.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Ersche KD
    2. Barnes A
    3. Jones PS
    4. Morein-Zamir S
    5. Robbins TW
    6. Bullmore ET

    (2011) Abnormal structure of frontostriatal brain systems is associated with aspects of impulsivity and compulsivity in cocaine dependence

    Brain 134:2013–2024.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr138

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Ersche KD
    2. Jones PS
    3. Williams GB
    4. Turton AJ
    5. Robbins TW
    6. Bullmore ET

    (2012) Abnormal brain structure implicated in stimulant drug addiction

    Science 335:601–604.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214463

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Ersche KD
    2. Williams GB
    3. Robbins TW
    4. Bullmore ET

    (2013) Meta-analysis of structural brain abnormalities associated with stimulant drug dependence and neuroimaging of addiction vulnerability and resilience

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23:615–624.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.02.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Farrell M
    2. Howes S
    3. Bebbington P
    4. Brugha T
    5. Jenkins R
    6. Lewis G
    7. Marsden J
    8. Taylor C
    9. Meltzer H

    (2001) Nicotine, alcohol and drug dependence and psychiatric comorbidity. Results of a national household survey

    The British Journal of Psychiatry : The Journal of Mental Science 179:432–437.

    https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.179.5.432

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Fedota JR
    2. Stein EA

    (2015) Resting-state functional connectivity and nicotine addiction: prospects for biomarker development

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1349:64–82.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12882

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Finn ES
    2. Shen X
    3. Scheinost D
    4. Rosenberg MD
    5. Huang J
    6. Chun MM
    7. Papademetris X
    8. Constable RT

    (2015) Functional connectome fingerprinting: identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity

    Nature Neuroscience 18:1664–1671.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4135

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Garofalo C
    2. Wright AGC

    (2017) Alcohol abuse, personality disorders, and aggression: The quest for a common underlying mechanism

    Aggression and Violent Behavior 34:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.03.002

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Sotiropoulos SN
    3. Wilson JA
    4. Coalson TS
    5. Fischl B
    6. Andersson JL
    7. Xu J
    8. Jbabdi S
    9. Webster M
    10. Polimeni JR
    11. Van Essen DC
    12. Jenkinson M
    13. WU-Minn HCP Consortium

    (2013) The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project

    NeuroImage 80:105–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Coalson TS
    3. Robinson EC
    4. Hacker CD
    5. Harwell J
    6. Yacoub E
    7. Ugurbil K
    8. Andersson J
    9. Beckmann CF
    10. Jenkinson M
    11. Smith SM
    12. Van Essen DC

    (2016) A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex

    Nature 536:171–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18933

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Goldstein RZ
    2. Volkow ND

    (2011) Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12:652–669.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Grabenhorst F
    2. Rolls ET

    (2011) Value, pleasure and choice in the ventral prefrontal cortex

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15:56–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hong LE
    2. Gu H
    3. Yang Y
    4. Ross TJ
    5. Salmeron BJ
    6. Buchholz B
    7. Thaker GK
    8. Stein EA

    (2009) Association of nicotine addiction and nicotine's actions with separate cingulate cortex functional circuits

    Archives of General Psychiatry 66:431–441.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hong LE
    2. Hodgkinson CA
    3. Yang Y
    4. Sampath H
    5. Ross TJ
    6. Buchholz B
    7. Salmeron BJ
    8. Srivastava V
    9. Thaker GK
    10. Goldman D
    11. Stein EA

    (2010) A genetically modulated, intrinsic cingulate circuit supports human nicotine addiction

    PNAS 107:13509–13514.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004745107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hu Y
    2. Salmeron BJ
    3. Gu H
    4. Stein EA
    5. Yang Y

    (2015) Impaired functional connectivity within and between frontostriatal circuits and its association with compulsive drug use and trait impulsivity in cocaine addiction

    JAMA Psychiatry 72:584–592.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Jenkinson M
    2. Beckmann CF
    3. Behrens TE
    4. Woolrich MW
    5. Smith SM

    (2012) FSL

    NeuroImage 62:782–790.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. King A
    2. McNamara P
    3. Angstadt M
    4. Phan KL

    (2010) Neural substrates of alcohol-induced smoking urge in heavy drinking nondaily smokers

    Neuropsychopharmacology 35:692–701.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.177

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Koob GF
    2. Volkow ND

    (2016) Neurobiology of addiction: a neurocircuitry analysis

    The Lancet Psychiatry 3:760–773.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00104-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Koukouli F
    2. Rooy M
    3. Tziotis D
    4. Sailor KA
    5. O'Neill HC
    6. Levenga J
    7. Witte M
    8. Nilges M
    9. Changeux JP
    10. Hoeffer CA
    11. Stitzel JA
    12. Gutkin BS
    13. DiGregorio DA
    14. Maskos U

    (2017) Nicotine reverses hypofrontality in animal models of addiction and schizophrenia

    Nature Medicine 23:347–354.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4274

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Kringelbach ML
    2. Rolls ET

    (2003) Neural correlates of rapid reversal learning in a simple model of human social interaction

    NeuroImage 20:1371–1383.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00393-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Lucantonio F
    2. Stalnaker TA
    3. Shaham Y
    4. Niv Y
    5. Schoenbaum G

    (2012) The impact of orbitofrontal dysfunction on cocaine addiction

    Nature Neuroscience 15:358–366.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Mar AC
    2. Walker AL
    3. Theobald DE
    4. Eagle DM
    5. Robbins TW

    (2011) Dissociable effects of lesions to orbitofrontal cortex subregions on impulsive choice in the rat

    Journal of Neuroscience 31:6398–6404.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6620-10.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Myerson J
    2. Green L
    3. Warusawitharana M

    (2001) Area under the curve as a measure of discounting

    Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 76:235–243.

    https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Navarro Schröder T
    2. Haak KV
    3. Zaragoza Jimenez NI
    4. Beckmann CF
    5. Doeller CF

    (2015) Functional topography of the human entorhinal cortex

    eLife 4:e06738.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06738

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. O'Doherty J
    2. Kringelbach ML
    3. Rolls ET
    4. Hornak J
    5. Andrews C

    (2001) Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex

    Nature Neuroscience 4:95–102.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/82959

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Power JD
    2. Mitra A
    3. Laumann TO
    4. Snyder AZ
    5. Schlaggar BL
    6. Petersen SE

    (2014) Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI

    NeuroImage 84:320–341.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.048

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Ray LA
    2. Mackillop J
    3. Monti PM

    (2010) Subjective responses to alcohol consumption as endophenotypes: advancing behavioral genetics in etiological and treatment models of alcoholism

    Substance Use & Misuse 45:1742–1765.

    https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2010.482427

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Robbins TW

    (2007) Shifting and stopping: fronto-striatal substrates, neurochemical modulation and clinical implications

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362:917–932.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2097

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Rolls ET
    2. Loh M
    3. Deco G
    4. Winterer G

    (2008) Computational models of schizophrenia and dopamine modulation in the prefrontal cortex

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9:696–709.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2462

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. Book

    1. Rolls ET

    (2014)

    Emotion and Decision-Making Explained

    Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Rolls ET
    2. Joliot M
    3. Tzourio-Mazoyer N

    (2015) Implementation of a new parcellation of the orbitofrontal cortex in the automated anatomical labeling atlas

    NeuroImage 122:1–5.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.075

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Rolls ET

    (2016) A non-reward attractor theory of depression

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 68:47–58.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.05.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Rolls ET

    (2017) The orbitofrontal cortex and emotion in health and disease, including depression

    Neuropsychologia.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.09.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Rolls ET
    2. Cheng W
    3. Gilson M
    4. Qiu J
    5. Hu Z
    6. Ruan H
    7. Li Y
    8. Huang CC
    9. Yang AC
    10. Tsai SJ
    11. Zhang X
    12. Zhuang K
    13. Lin CP
    14. Deco G
    15. Xie P
    16. Feng J

    (2018a) Effective connectivity in depression

    Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging 3:187–197.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.10.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. Book

    1. Rolls ET

    (2018b)

    The Brain, Emotion, and Depression

    Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Rosenberg MD
    2. Finn ES
    3. Scheinost D
    4. Papademetris X
    5. Shen X
    6. Constable RT
    7. Chun MM

    (2016) A neuromarker of sustained attention from whole-brain functional connectivity

    Nature Neuroscience 19:165–171.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4179

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium

    (2014) Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci

    Nature 511:421–427.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13595

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Schultz DH
    2. Cole MW

    (2016) Higher intelligence is associated with less task-related brain network reconfiguration

    The Journal of Neuroscience 36:8551–8561.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0358-16.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Schumann G
    2. Loth E
    3. Banaschewski T
    4. Barbot A
    5. Barker G
    6. Büchel C
    7. Conrod PJ
    8. Dalley JW
    9. Flor H
    10. Gallinat J
    11. Garavan H
    12. Heinz A
    13. Itterman B
    14. Lathrop M
    15. Mallik C
    16. Mann K
    17. Martinot JL
    18. Paus T
    19. Poline JB
    20. Robbins TW
    21. Rietschel M
    22. Reed L
    23. Smolka M
    24. Spanagel R
    25. Speiser C
    26. Stephens DN
    27. Ströhle A
    28. Struve M
    29. IMAGEN consortium

    (2010) The IMAGEN study: reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology

    Molecular Psychiatry 15:1128–1139.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2010.4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Seo D
    2. Lacadie CM
    3. Tuit K
    4. Hong KI
    5. Constable RT
    6. Sinha R

    (2013) Disrupted ventromedial prefrontal function, alcohol craving, and subsequent relapse risk

    JAMA Psychiatry 70:727–739.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.762

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Shen X
    2. Tokoglu F
    3. Papademetris X
    4. Constable RT

    (2013) Groupwise whole-brain parcellation from resting-state fMRI data for network node identification

    NeuroImage 82:403–415.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.081

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Smith SM
    2. Beckmann CF
    3. Andersson J
    4. Auerbach EJ
    5. Bijsterbosch J
    6. Douaud G
    7. Duff E
    8. Feinberg DA
    9. Griffanti L
    10. Harms MP
    11. Kelly M
    12. Laumann T
    13. Miller KL
    14. Moeller S
    15. Petersen S
    16. Power J
    17. Salimi-Khorshidi G
    18. Snyder AZ
    19. Vu AT
    20. Woolrich MW
    21. Xu J
    22. Yacoub E
    23. Uğurbil K
    24. Van Essen DC
    25. Glasser MF
    26. WU-Minn HCP Consortium

    (2013) Resting-state fMRI in the human connectome project

    NeuroImage 80:144–168.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Smith JL
    2. Mattick RP
    3. Jamadar SD
    4. Iredale JM

    (2014) Deficits in behavioural inhibition in substance abuse and addiction: a meta-analysis

    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 145:1–33.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.08.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Smith SM
    2. Nichols TE
    3. Vidaurre D
    4. Winkler AM
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Glasser MF
    7. Ugurbil K
    8. Barch DM
    9. Van Essen DC
    10. Miller KL

    (2015) A positive-negative mode of population covariation links brain connectivity, demographics and behavior

    Nature Neuroscience 18:1565–1567.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4125

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Stephens DN
    2. King SL
    3. Lambert JJ
    4. Belelli D
    5. Duka T

    (2017) GAB_AA receptor subtype involvement in addictive behaviour

    Genes, Brain and Behavior 16:149–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12321

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. Book

    1. Storey JD

    (2002)

    A Direct Approach to False Discovery Rates

    Stanford, United States: Stanford University.

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Storey JD
    2. Tibshirani R

    (2003) Statistical significance for genomewide studies

    PNAS 100:9440–9445.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1530509100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Sutherland MT
    2. Stein EA

    (2018) Functional neurocircuits and neuroimaging biomarkers of tobacco use disorder

    Trends in Molecular Medicine 24:129–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2017.12.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Tavor I
    2. Parker Jones O
    3. Mars RB
    4. Smith SM
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Jbabdi S

    (2016) Task-free MRI predicts individual differences in brain activity during task performance

    Science 352:216–220.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Tobacco GC
    2. Tobacco and Genetics Consortium

    (2010) Genome-wide meta-analyses identify multiple loci associated with smoking behavior

    Nature Genetics 42:441–447.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.571

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Van Essen DC
    2. Ugurbil K
    3. Auerbach E
    4. Barch D
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Bucholz R
    7. Chang A
    8. Chen L
    9. Corbetta M
    10. Curtiss SW
    11. Della Penna S
    12. Feinberg D
    13. Glasser MF
    14. Harel N
    15. Heath AC
    16. Larson-Prior L
    17. Marcus D
    18. Michalareas G
    19. Moeller S
    20. Oostenveld R
    21. Petersen SE
    22. Prior F
    23. Schlaggar BL
    24. Smith SM
    25. Snyder AZ
    26. Xu J
    27. Yacoub E
    28. WU-Minn HCP Consortium

    (2012) The Human Connectome Project: a data acquisition perspective

    NeuroImage 62:2222–2231.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Van Essen DC
    2. Smith SM
    3. Barch DM
    4. Behrens TE
    5. Yacoub E
    6. Ugurbil K
    7. WU-Minn HCP Consortium

    (2013) The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: an overview

    NeuroImage 80:62–79.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Wang C
    2. Xu X
    3. Qian W
    4. Shen Z
    5. Zhang M

    (2015) Altered human brain anatomy in chronic smokers: a review of magnetic resonance imaging studies

    Neurological Sciences 36:497–504.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-015-2065-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Weiland BJ
    2. Sabbineni A
    3. Calhoun VD
    4. Welsh RC
    5. Hutchison KE

    (2015) Reduced executive and default network functional connectivity in cigarette smokers

    Human Brain Mapping 36:872–882.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22672

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Whelan R
    2. Conrod PJ
    3. Poline JB
    4. Lourdusamy A
    5. Banaschewski T
    6. Barker GJ
    7. Bellgrove MA
    8. Büchel C
    9. Byrne M
    10. Cummins TD
    11. Fauth-Bühler M
    12. Flor H
    13. Gallinat J
    14. Heinz A
    15. Ittermann B
    16. Mann K
    17. Martinot JL
    18. Lalor EC
    19. Lathrop M
    20. Loth E
    21. Nees F
    22. Paus T
    23. Rietschel M
    24. Smolka MN
    25. Spanagel R
    26. Stephens DN
    27. Struve M
    28. Thyreau B
    29. Vollstaedt-Klein S
    30. Robbins TW
    31. Schumann G
    32. Garavan H
    33. IMAGEN Consortium

    (2012) Adolescent impulsivity phenotypes characterized by distinct brain networks

    Nature Neuroscience 15:920–925.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3092

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Whelan R
    2. Watts R
    3. Orr CA
    4. Althoff RR
    5. Artiges E
    6. Banaschewski T
    7. Barker GJ
    8. Bokde AL
    9. Büchel C
    10. Carvalho FM
    11. Conrod PJ
    12. Flor H
    13. Fauth-Bühler M
    14. Frouin V
    15. Gallinat J
    16. Gan G
    17. Gowland P
    18. Heinz A
    19. Ittermann B
    20. Lawrence C
    21. Mann K
    22. Martinot JL
    23. Nees F
    24. Ortiz N
    25. Paillère-Martinot ML
    26. Paus T
    27. Pausova Z
    28. Rietschel M
    29. Robbins TW
    30. Smolka MN
    31. Ströhle A
    32. Schumann G
    33. Garavan H
    34. IMAGEN Consortium

    (2014) Neuropsychosocial profiles of current and future adolescent alcohol misusers

    Nature 512:185–189.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13402

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Woicik PA
    2. Stewart SH
    3. Pihl RO
    4. Conrod PJ

    (2009) The Substance Use Risk Profile Scale: a scale measuring traits linked to reinforcement-specific substance use profiles

    Addictive Behaviors 34:1042–1055.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.07.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Yuan K
    2. Yu D
    3. Bi Y
    4. Li Y
    5. Guan Y
    6. Liu J
    7. Zhang Y
    8. Qin W
    9. Lu X
    10. Tian J

    (2016) The implication of frontostriatal circuits in young smokers: A resting-state study

    Human Brain Mapping 37:2013–2026.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23153

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Zalesky A
    2. Fornito A
    3. Cocchi L
    4. Gollo LL
    5. Breakspear M

    (2014) Time-resolved resting-state brain networks

    PNAS 111:10341–10346.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400181111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Zhu X
    2. Cortes CR
    3. Mathur K
    4. Tomasi D
    5. Momenan R

    (2017) Model-free functional connectivity and impulsivity correlates of alcohol dependence: a resting-state study

    Addiction Biology 22:206–217.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.12272

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Wei Cheng

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China
   3. Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Edmund T Rolls

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1118-1743

2. Edmund T Rolls

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
   3. Oxford Centre for Computational Neuroscience, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Wei Cheng

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3025-1292

3. Trevor W Robbins

   1. Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
   2. Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Weikang Gong

   1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
   2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Zhaowen Liu

   School of Computer Science and Technology, Xidian University, Xi’an, China

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Wujun Lv

   School of Mathematics, Shanghai University Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Jingnan Du

   Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Hongkai Wen

   Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Liang Ma

   Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

   Contribution

   Software

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Erin Burke Quinlan

    Centre for Population Neuroscience and Stratified Medicine (PONS) and MRC-SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Resources, Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Hugh Garavan

    1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Vermont, United States
    2. Department of Psychiatry Psychology, University of Vermont, Vermont, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Eric Artiges

    Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, INSERM Unit 1000 'Neuroimaging & Psychiatry', University Paris Sud – Paris Saclay, University Paris Descartes, Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot and GH Nord Essonne Psychiatry Department 91G16, Orsay, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos

    NeuroSpin CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

    Contribution

    Resources, Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1242-8990

14. Michael N Smolka

    Department of Psychiatry and Neuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Contribution

    Resources, Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Gunter Schumann

    Centre for Population Neuroscience and Stratified Medicine (PONS) and MRC-SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Resources, Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

16. Keith Kendrick

    Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation of the Ministry of Education, School of Life Science and Technology, Center for Information in Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

    Contribution

    Writing—review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0371-5904

17. Jianfeng Feng

    1. Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    2. Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China
    3. Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
    4. School of Mathematical Sciences and Centre for Computational Systems Biology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

    For correspondence

    jianfeng64@gmail.com

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5987-2258

• 5,529

  views

• 638

  downloads

• 43

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.