The human cerebral cortex consists of two hemispheres that are not exactly alike and show marked differences in structure and function along a left-to-right axis (Geschwind and Levitsky, 1968; Güntürkün et al., 2020; Karolis et al., 2019; Kong et al., 2018; Kong et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2021; Raemaekers et al., 2018; Sha et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2021). It has been suggested that the brain favors asymmetry to avoid duplication of neural circuitry having equivalent functions (Karolis et al., 2019; Levy, 1977). For example, bilateral cortical regions showing asymmetry in task-evoked activity have reduced (long-range) connections with the opposite homologous regions, favoring more local connectivity (Karolis et al., 2019).

Asymmetry, that is quantitative hemispheric differences between contralateral homologous regions, supports partly differentiable functional processes (Karolis et al., 2019; Galaburda et al., 1990; Call et al., 2017). Previous work has suggested that functions related to leftward dominance include language processing (Lane et al., 2017; Piervincenzi et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019), letter search (Pollack and Price, 2019), and analogical reasoning (Urbanski et al., 2016). On the other hand, rightward dominance of functional activation has been related to holistic word processing (Ventura et al., 2019), visuospatial abilities (Chen et al., 2019), emotional processing (Moeck et al., 2020), as well as with psychiatric disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (Floris et al., 2016). In addition to task-related asymmetries, resting state functional connectivity (FC) studies have also reported hemispheric differences. For example, language areas of the middle and superior temporal cortex showed increased connectivity with regions in the left hemisphere relative to their right hemispheric counterparts (Raemaekers et al., 2018), and the right amygdala showed higher connectivity with the entire cortex than the left amygdala (Tetereva et al., 2020). Moreover, previous work has indicated that there are inter- and intra-hemispheric differences in functional connectivity between healthy adults and patients with schizophrenia (Agcaoglu et al., 2018), and between neurotypical individuals and those diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (Hahamy et al., 2015). It is possible that such functional processing asymmetries may be driven by subtle differences in functional organization between the hemispheres.

One appealing approach to studying functional organization is by evaluating the low-dimensional axes, or gradients, present within the connectome. These approaches embed brain regions on a continuous data-driven space based on their functional connectome (Coifman et al., 2005; Margulies et al., 2016; Vos de Wael et al., 2020). Gradients capture how connectivity profiles from distinct cortical regions are integrated (i.e. similar functional connectivity profiles) and segregated (i.e. dissimilar functional connectivity profiles) across the cortex (Margulies et al., 2016; Bethlehem et al., 2020; Haak and Beckmann, 2020; Paquola et al., 2019). Regions that have similar connectivity profiles are at similar positions along these gradients, whereas regions with dissimilar connectivity profiles are placed further apart. The principal functional gradient, partly reflected in the intrinsic geometry of the cortex, shows that regions of the transmodal systems occupy locations equidistant from unimodal systems (Margulies et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2018). Gradients provide a synoptic framework to capture smooth variations of connectivity patterns across the cortical mantle. They describe variations in genetic patterning (Vainik et al., 2020; Valk et al., 2020; Valk et al., 2022, functional processes Margulies et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2018; Turnbull et al., 2020), and are observed across species (Valk et al., 2020; Coletta et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020). Gradients have been linked to graph-theoretical markers such as degree centrality (Hong et al., 2019) and microcircuit dynamics (Park et al., 2021) as well as connectivity distance (Hong et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021). Moreover, the principal gradient describes the geodesic distance between primary and default regions, and relates to cortical microstructure and associated processing hierarchies (Huntenburg et al., 2018). In doing so, and in contrast to clustering or network-based approaches, the gradient framework provides a spatial ordering of functional brain networks, placing them along a gradual axis of connectivity variation reaching from sensory to transmodal areas. In the context of asymmetry of gradient loadings this would mean that a given region with a significant left-ward asymmetry along the first gradient (sensory-to-transmodal) has a connectivity profile more similar to the transmodal anchor in the left hemisphere relative to the right. Consequently, these regions are placed at different positions along the cortical hierarchy, providing novel insights concerning the system-level variations in the asymmetric brain. Indeed, recent research suggests that the principal gradient is asymmetric (Liang et al., 2021; Gonzalez Alam et al., 2022) and that the degree of asymmetry relates to individual differences in semantic performance and visual reasoning (Gonzalez Alam et al., 2022).

As inter-hemispheric asymmetry has been observed consistently in human brain structure and function, there may be important (phylo)genetic factors supporting lateralized human cognition (Güntürkün et al., 2020; Corballis, 1989; Corballis, 2009; Güntürkün and Ocklenburg, 2017; Vilain et al., 2011; Vallortigara et al., 1999). Previous work has reported that brain structure asymmetry is heritable (Sha et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2021), especially in the language areas, and differentiates between humans and non-human primates (Eichert et al., 2020; Eichert et al., 2019; Neubauer et al., 2020; Spocter et al., 2020). At the same time, it has been shown that both humans and apes show asymmetry of brain shape (Neubauer et al., 2020), indicating that asymmetry is not a uniquely human brain feature. However, asymmetry was observed to be more local and variable in humans, potentially suggesting that individual variation in asymmetry in humans varies as a function of localized networks rather than global features. It is of note that the full FC matrix contains both intra-hemispheric and inter-hemispheric connections. Intra-hemispheric connections, compared to the inter-hemispheric connections, have been suggested to reflect inhibition of the corpus callosum and may underlie hemispheric specializations involving language, reasoning, and attention (Gazzaniga, 2000). Conversely, inter-hemispheric connectivity may reflect information transfer between hemispheres, for example, of motoric information, or crude information concerning spatial locations (Gazzaniga, 2000). Previous studies have mainly employed intra-hemispheric FC to study gradient asymmetry (Liang et al., 2021; Gonzalez Alam et al., 2022). However, inter-hemispheric differences in functional connectivity may also have functional relevance. For example, inter-hemispheric connectivity has been reported to be abnormal in patients with schizophrenia (Agcaoglu et al., 2018; Chang et al., 2019) and autism (Hahamy et al., 2015). Indeed differences not only of functional organization within each hemisphere but also between hemispheres, enabled by the corpus callosum, are relevant for integration and segregation of cognitive function and support hemispheric coordination (Gazzaniga, 2000; Toga and Thompson, 2003).

Here, we investigated the genetic basis of asymmetry of functional organization. We first examined whether inter-individual differences in asymmetry of functional organization are under genetic control, that is heritable. Second, we investigated whether asymmetry of functional organization is phylogenetically conserved in macaques. To probe individual variation in asymmetry of functional organization, we utilized a data-driven nonlinear dimension reduction technique, as this approach can provide reliable and robust indices of individual variation of cortical organization (Hong et al., 2020). We first obtained connectomic gradients for each hemisphere separately (left and right intra-hemispheric) as well as those describing functional connectivity from left to right and right to left hemispheres (left and right inter-hemispheric). We then computed the difference between individual gradient scores to study the asymmetry, consistent with prior studies (Liang et al., 2021; Gonzalez Alam et al., 2022). Subsequently, to evaluate the heritability of possible differences between left and right intra- and inter-hemispheric FC gradients, we used the twin pedigree set-up of the Human Connectome Project S1200 release young adults dataset (Van Essen et al., 2013). To assess whether asymmetry is conserved in other primates, we compared the asymmetry of functional gradients of humans with those observed in macaque monkeys using the prime-DE dataset (Xu et al., 2020; Milham et al., 2018). Finally, we conducted a confirmatory meta-analysis to explore the relationship between the patterns of gradient asymmetry and task-based functional MRI activations. Multiple analyses verified the robustness and replicability of our results.

In this study, we investigated the extent to which human cortical functional organization is asymmetric using a gradient-based approach. We assessed whether genetic factors shape such asymmetry and evaluated whether patterns of asymmetry are phylogenetically conserved between humans and non-human primates (macaques). We found that the principal gradient revealed hemispheric differences in most cortical regions, excluding the visual cortex. The language network and default-mode network showed the most leftward asymmetry while the frontoparietal network showed the most rightward asymmetry. The observed asymmetry of functional organization along the principal gradient was heritable. At the same time, regions with high asymmetry showed variable heritability. This may suggest that asymmetry in functional organization reflects both heritable and experience-dependent factors. Although the difference in left and right hemispheric functional organization was not significant along the principal functional gradient in a sample of macaques, the inter-hemispheric asymmetric pattern was comparable to the asymmetry pattern observed in humans indicating phylogenetic conservation. Notably, both the language and frontoparietal networks showed a higher leftward asymmetry in humans relative to macaques, indicating cross-species differences in asymmetry of specific transmodal functional networks. Decoding task-based functional activations along the asymmetry axis of the principal gradient, we observed that regions with a leftward preference were associated with language, autobiographical memory, and social cognition domains, whereas those with a rightward preference included cognitive control, working memory, and inhibition. In sum, our study shows the asymmetry of functional organization is, in part, heritable in humans and phylogenetically conserved in humans and macaques. At the same time, we observed that asymmetry of regions linked to higher-order cognitive functions such as language and cognitive control showed marked differences between humans and macaques and variable heritability in humans, possibly reflecting an evolutionary adaptation allowing for experience-dependent specialization.

By studying asymmetry in functional organization using a gradient approach, we have extended previous studies reporting asymmetric functional connectivity. Indeed, although the functional organization of the cerebral cortex has a largely symmetric pattern, it also shows subtle differences between hemispheres (Liang et al., 2021; Gonzalez Alam et al., 2022; Iturria-Medina et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2017). For the intra-hemispheric asymmetry gradients, we found that regions belonging to the language network showed the strongest leftward preference along the principal gradient axis. This indicates that their functional connectivity profiles were more similar to the default mode, relative to their right-hemispheric counterparts. Conversely, ventral multimodal networks were closer to the transmodal apex of the principal gradient in the right hemisphere, relative to their homologues in the left hemisphere. As such, our observations suggest that key transmodal regions, part of the language and control networks, show organizational preference to either the left or right hemisphere. Anterior lateral default mode subnetworks have been shown to uniquely exhibit positive connectivity to the language network (Gordon et al., 2020), possibly leading to increased gradient loadings of the language network in the left hemisphere, placing them closer to the default regions along the principal gradient in the left hemisphere relative to the right. Conversely, the transmodal frontoparietal network was located at the apex of rightward preference, possibly suggesting a rightward lateralization of cortical regions associated with attention and control and ‘default’ internal cognition (Corbetta and Shulman, 2002; Smallwood et al., 2021). The observed dissociation between language and control networks is also in line with previous work suggesting an inverse pattern of language and attention between hemispheres (Karolis et al., 2019; Zago et al., 2016). Such patterns may be linked to inhibition of corpus callosum (Cook, 1984), promoting hemispheric specialization. It has been suggested that such inter-hemispheric connections set the stage for intra-hemispheric patterns related to association fibers (Gazzaniga, 2000). Future research may relate functional asymmetry directly to asymmetry in underlying structure to uncover how different white-matter tracts contribute to asymmetry of functional organization.

We furthermore investigated whether such individual variations in asymmetry of functional organization could be attributed to genetic factors. To do so, we performed heritability analysis enabled by the twin design of the Human Connectome Project (Van Essen et al., 2013). Previous work indicated that brain structure including cortical thickness, surface area, and white matter connection (Kong et al., 2018; Sha et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2021), as well as functional connectome organization (Colclough et al., 2017; Ge et al., 2017) are heritable. Our twin-based heritability analyses revealed heritable asymmetry of the principal functional gradient in the entire cortex, excluding visual cortex. At the same time, studying the association between heritability and asymmetry patterns we observed mixed results. Although we observed that the language-related area PSL showed the highest heritability, the highly asymmetric area 44 (Broca’s area) showed the lowest heritability. This may reflect a differential (dorsal and ventral) pathway of language development in the frontal and temporal lobe, where the dorsal pathway to the inferior frontal gyrus matures at later stages in development (Brauer et al., 2013). For example, previous work found that temporal language areas showed high heritability of cortical thickness asymmetry (Sha et al., 2021) and white matter connection asymmetry (Zhong et al., 2021) but frontal language areas did not. Such posterior-anterior differences may be due to developmental factors or axes of stability versus plasticity in the cortex (García-Cabezas et al., 2017). A case study of an individual born without a left temporal lobe found that frontal language areas in the left hemisphere did not emerge in the absence of temporal language areas in the left hemisphere, and that language functions instead relied on the right hemispheric functional network (Tuckute et al., 2022). It is thus possible that Broca’s area may mature after more posterior language regions in hierarchical fashion, which may be related to decreasing heritability in frontal language areas (i.e. more influenced by developmental and/or environmental factors). Recent work suggests that asymmetric patterning of brain structure and function are largely determined prenatally and unaffected by preterm birth (Williams et al., 2021). In neonates, asymmetric patterns were largely observed in primary and unimodal areas, whereas association regions were largely symmetric. Thus, asymmetry in association regions may be more experience-dependent. One focus of future work could thus be to evaluate the development of asymmetry in functional organization. Moreover, by means of GWAS approaches, it may also be possible to get more insight in specific genes and associated processes involved in functional asymmetry.

Evaluating the correspondence of asymmetry of functional organization between humans and macaques, by aligning the human gradients to the macaque gradient space (Xu et al., 2020), we observed a similarity between asymmetry of the principal gradient in both species in case of intra-hemispheric connectivity. This indicates functional asymmetry of within-hemispheric connectivity may be conserved across primates. At the same time, we found that language, default mode, and frontoparietal networks showed qualitatively more asymmetry in humans (human >macaque). These findings may support the notion that though asymmetry is a phenomenon existent across different primates, regions involved in higher order cognitive functions in humans are particularly asymmetric. Previous work studying asymmetry in white matter structure in primates found that humans showed more leftward arcuate fasciculus volume and surface relative to macaques (Eichert et al., 2019). The arcuate fasciculus is a white matter tract implicated in language functions by connecting Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas (Geschwind, 1970). Moreover, by comparing humans, macaques, and chimpanzees (Eichert et al., 2020), evolutionary modifications to this tract in humans relative to other primates have been reported, possibly derived from auditory pathways (Balezeau et al., 2020). At the same time, other structural studies have also observed leftward asymmetry of language areas in chimpanzees, indicating that asymmetry of language-regions per se may not be a human-specific feature (Spocter et al., 2020; Xiang et al., 2020). Fittingly, there are no significant differences of thickness and area asymmetry between humans and chimpanzees in superior temporal lobe (Xiang et al., 2020). Studying the endocranial shape of humans and non-human primates, temporal and occipital cortices showed local differences in asymmetry across species, and much more variability in humans relative to non-human primates (Neubauer et al., 2020). This suggests that whereas brain asymmetry is a phenomenon observed throughout mammals (Assaf et al., 2020), specific nuances may relate to species-specific behavioral and cognitive differences. Future research could assess asymmetry of brain organization in other primates, and relate observed differences in functional organization to those in white matter structure.

Although overall intra- and inter-hemispheric connectivity showed a strong spatial overlap in humans, we also observed various differences between the metrics across our analysis. For example, although we found both intra- and inter-hemispheric differences in gradient organization to be heritable, only for the former was a correspondence between the degree of asymmetry and heritability found. Similarly, comparing human and macaques, we only observed conservation of spatial patterning of asymmetry was conserved for intra-hemispheric connections. Whereas intra-hemispheric asymmetry relates to association fibers, commissural fibers underlie inter-hemispheric connections (Tzourio-Mazoyer, 2016). It has been suggested that there is a trade-off within and across mammals of inter- and intra-hemispheric connectivity patterns to conserve the balance between gray and white-matter (Assaf et al., 2020). Consequently, differences in asymmetry of both ipsi- and contralateral functional connections may be reflective of adjustments in this balance within and across species. Secondly, previous research studying intra- and inter-hemispheric connectivity and associated asymmetry, has indicated a developmental trajectory from inter- to intra-hemispheric organization of functional brain connectivity, varying from unimodal to transmodal areas (Friederici et al., 2011; Szaflarski et al., 2006). It is thus possible that a reduced correspondence of asymmetry and heritability in humans, as well as lack of spatial similarities between humans and macaques for inter-hemispheric connectivity may be due to the age of both samples (young adults in humans, adolescents in macaques). Further research could study inter- and intra-hemispheric asymmetry in functional organization as a function of development in both species, to further disentangle heritability and cross-species conservation and adaptation.

The functional relevance of asymmetry along the sensory-transmodal axis was evaluated in the human brain by projecting meta-analytical task-based coactivations along asymmetric effects of the functional principal gradient. In line with our expectations based on the distribution of asymmetry within functional networks, we found that task-based activations associated with language processing leaned leftward while task-based activations associated with executive functions leaned rightward, specifically in the intra-hemispheric pattern. This suggests that lateralized functions supported by the brain’s asymmetry have functional relevance (especially higher order cognitive functions such as language and executive control). Indeed, related work has shown a direct link between asymmetry and semantic and visual recognition skills (Gonzalez Alam et al., 2022), suggesting that asymmetry of individuals relates to variation in behavioral performance in these domains (Gonzalez Alam et al., 2022; Gonzalez Alam et al., 2019). Our observation of asymmetry of language versus executive functions may also be in line with notions of differential axes of asymmetry, dissociating symbolic/language, emotion, perception/action, and decision functional axes (Karolis et al., 2019). The asymmetry of principal functional gradient in humans and macaques showed a divergence along these axes, possibly indicating cross-species variability within the lateralization archetypes in primates. Notably, left hemispheric language lateralization is enabled throughout language development while right hemispheric language activation declines systematically with age (Olulade et al., 2020). Therefore, future research may focus on studying how the lateralization of human behavior is shaped by development and aging and how this may impact function and behavior.

Although we showed asymmetry in functional organization, there are various technical and methodological aspects to be considered. In the current work, we used the MMP (Glasser et al., 2016) for surface-based human fMRI data. A previous study used the atlas of intrinsic connectivity of homotopic areas (Xiang et al., 2020) (AICHA, https://www.gin.cnrs.fr/en/tools/aicha) for voxel-based fMRI data (Liang et al., 2021). In line with the results of that study, we found similar intra-hemispheric differences in functional gradients. Extending that work we additionally used the DK atlas (Desikan et al., 2006), which is often used in structural asymmetry studies (Sha et al., 2021; Postema et al., 2019). We again found asymmetric patterns, with a rightward dorsal frontal lobe and leftward posterior superior temporal lobe. The other temporal regions, having leftward or rightward asymmetry using MMP, showed no or less asymmetry using the DK atlas. Possibly, such subtle differences are not captured by the DK atlas, with only 34 cortical parcels per hemisphere. Evaluating the consistency of functional asymmetry across different datasets, we found that HCP (n=1014) and UKB (n=34,604) showed consistent leftward asymmetric functional organization in the language and default mode networks but no consistent rightward asymmetry of the frontoparietal network. Such differences may be due to technical differences between the datasets (Xifra-Porxas et al., 2021). However, it may also reflect sample specific differences in asymmetry. Indeed, whereas the HCP sample consists of young-adults with an age-range of 22–37 years, the UKB has a comparatively older and wider age range (from 40 to more than 70 years). Thus, it is possible the observed differences in the frontoparietal network are directly related to age-related asymmetry effects (Olulade et al., 2020). Due to the small sample size of macaques, it is important to be careful when interpreting our observations regarding the associated asymmetry, and its relation to patterns observed in humans. Therefore, further study is needed to evaluate the asymmetry patterns in macaques using large datasets (Milham et al., 2018; Messinger et al., 2021).

To conclude, we investigated the genetic and phylogenetic basis of asymmetry of large-scale functional organization. We observed that the principal (unimodal-transmodal) gradient (Margulies et al., 2016) is asymmetric, with regions involved in language showing leftward organization and regions associated with executive function showing rightward organization. This asymmetry was heritable and, in the case of organization of intra-hemispheric connectivity, showed spatial correspondence between humans and macaques. At the same time, functional asymmetry was more pronounced in language networks in humans relative to macaques, suggesting adaptation. The current framework may be expanded by future research investigating the development and phylogeny of functional asymmetry as well as its neuroanatomical basis in healthy and clinical samples. This may provide important insights in individual-level brain asymmetry and its relation to human cognition.

The current research complies with all relevant ethical regulations as set by The Independent Research Ethics Committee at the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University of Duesseldorf (study number 2018–317).

All human data analyzed in this manuscript were obtained from the open-access HCP young adult sample (https://www.humanconnectome.org/), UK Biobank (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/). Macaque data came from PRIME-DE (http://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/indi/indiPRIME.html). Gradient analyses and visualization were performed using the Python package Brainspace (Vos de Wael et al., 2020) (https://brainspace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html). Heritability analyses were performed using Solar Eclipse 8.5.1b (https://www.solar-eclipse-genetics.org). Task-based function association analyses were based on NeuroSynth (Yarkoni et al., 2011) (https://neurosynth.org/). Full statistical scripts can be found at https://github.com/CNG-LAB/cngopen/tree/main/asymmetry_functional_gradients (copy archived at swh:1:rev:07d4a1a03267dac12ac8bfbccc8e09049cac9f31;path=/asymmetry_functional_gradients).

1. 1. HCP S1200

   (2018) ConnectomeDB

   ID S1200. 1200 Subjects Data Release.

   https://db.humanconnectome.org/

1. 1. Agcaoglu O
   2. Miller R
   3. Damaraju E
   4. Rashid B
   5. Bustillo J
   6. Cetin MS
   7. Van Erp TGM
   8. McEwen S
   9. Preda A
   10. Ford JM
   11. Lim KO
   12. Manoach DS
   13. Mathalon DH
   14. Potkin SG
   15. Calhoun VD

   (2018) Decreased hemispheric connectivity and decreased intra- and inter- hemisphere asymmetry of resting state functional network connectivity in schizophrenia

   Brain Imaging and Behavior 12:615–630.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-017-9718-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Almasy L
   2. Blangero J

   (1998) Multipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees

   American Journal of Human Genetics 62:1198–1211.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/301844

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Assaf Y
   2. Bouznach A
   3. Zomet O
   4. Marom A
   5. Yovel Y

   (2020) Conservation of brain connectivity and wiring across the mammalian class

   Nature Neuroscience 23:805–808.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0641-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Balezeau F
   2. Wilson B
   3. Gallardo G
   4. Dick F
   5. Hopkins W
   6. Anwander A
   7. Friederici AD
   8. Griffiths TD
   9. Petkov CI

   (2020) Primate auditory prototype in the evolution of the arcuate fasciculus

   Nature Neuroscience 23:611–614.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0623-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. Software

   1. Bayrak Ş
   2. Wan B
   3. Valk S
   4. Doro M
   5. Schaare L

   (2022) cngopen, version swh:1:rev:07d4a1a03267dac12ac8bfbccc8e09049cac9f31;path=/asymmetry_functional_gradients

   Software Heritage.

   https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:71b0599c403c4b8b2404a85fc7ee22cf651cbe6d;origin=https://github.com/CNG-LAB/cngopen;visit=swh:1:snp:352d46732f9c4cdfa855c788300214c24b2d9ea0;anchor=swh:1:rev:07d4a1a03267dac12ac8bfbccc8e09049cac9f31;path=/asymmetry_functional_gradients/
6. 1. Bethlehem RAI
   2. Paquola C
   3. Seidlitz J
   4. Ronan L
   5. Bernhardt B
   6. Consortium CC
   7. Tsvetanov KA

   (2020) Dispersion of functional gradients across the adult lifespan

   NeuroImage 222:117299.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117299

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Brauer J
   2. Anwander A
   3. Perani D
   4. Friederici AD

   (2013) Dorsal and ventral pathways in language development

   Brain and Language 127:289–295.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.03.001

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. Book

   1. Call J
   2. Burghardt GM
   3. Pepperberg IM
   4. Snowdon CT
   5. Zentall T

   (2017) APA Handbook of Comparative Psychology: Basic Concepts, Methods, Neural Substrate, and Behavior

   American Psychological Association.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/0000011-000

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chang X
   2. Collin G
   3. Mandl RCW
   4. Cahn W
   5. Kahn RS

   (2019) Interhemispheric connectivity and hemispheric specialization in schizophrenia patients and their unaffected siblings

   NeuroImage. Clinical 21:101656.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101656

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Chen Q
    2. Beaty RE
    3. Cui Z
    4. Sun J
    5. He H
    6. Zhuang K
    7. Ren Z
    8. Liu G
    9. Qiu J

    (2019) Brain hemispheric involvement in visuospatial and verbal divergent thinking

    NeuroImage 202:116065.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116065

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Coifman RR
    2. Lafon S
    3. Lee AB
    4. Maggioni M
    5. Nadler B
    6. Warner F
    7. Zucker SW

    (2005) Geometric diffusions as a tool for harmonic analysis and structure definition of data: diffusion maps

    PNAS 102:7426–7431.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500334102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Colclough GL
    2. Smith SM
    3. Nichols TE
    4. Winkler AM
    5. Sotiropoulos SN
    6. Glasser MF
    7. Van Essen DC
    8. Woolrich MW

    (2017) The heritability of multi-modal connectivity in human brain activity

    eLife 6:e20178.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20178

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Coletta L
    2. Pagani M
    3. Whitesell JD
    4. Harris JA
    5. Bernhardt B
    6. Gozzi A

    (2020) Network structure of the mouse brain connectome with voxel resolution

    Science Advances 6:eabb7187.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb7187

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cook ND

    (1984) Homotopic callosal inhibition

    Brain and Language 23:116–125.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934x(84)90010-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Corballis MC

    (1989) Laterality and human evolution

    Psychological Review 96:492–505.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.492

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Corballis MC

    (2009) The evolution and genetics of cerebral asymmetry

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 364:867–879.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0232

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Corbetta M
    2. Shulman GL

    (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 3:201–215.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Desikan RS
    2. Ségonne F
    3. Fischl B
    4. Quinn BT
    5. Dickerson BC
    6. Blacker D
    7. Buckner RL
    8. Dale AM
    9. Maguire RP
    10. Hyman BT
    11. Albert MS
    12. Killiany RJ

    (2006) An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest

    NeuroImage 31:968–980.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Eichert N
    2. Verhagen L
    3. Folloni D
    4. Jbabdi S
    5. Khrapitchev AA
    6. Sibson NR
    7. Mantini D
    8. Sallet J
    9. Mars RB

    (2019) What is special about the human arcuate fasciculus? Lateralization, projections, and expansion

    Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 118:107–115.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Eichert N
    2. Robinson EC
    3. Bryant KL
    4. Jbabdi S
    5. Jenkinson M
    6. Li L
    7. Krug K
    8. Watkins KE
    9. Mars RB

    (2020) Cross-species cortical alignment identifies different types of anatomical reorganization in the primate temporal lobe

    eLife 9:e53232.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53232

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Floris DL
    2. Barber AD
    3. Nebel MB
    4. Martinelli M
    5. Lai M-C
    6. Crocetti D
    7. Baron-Cohen S
    8. Suckling J
    9. Pekar JJ
    10. Mostofsky SH

    (2016) Atypical lateralization of motor circuit functional connectivity in children with autism is associated with motor deficits

    Molecular Autism 7:35.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-016-0096-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Friederici AD
    2. Brauer J
    3. Lohmann G

    (2011) Maturation of the language network: from inter- to intrahemispheric connectivities

    PLOS ONE 6:e20726.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020726

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Galaburda AM
    2. Rosen GD
    3. Sherman GF

    (1990) Individual variability in cortical organization: its relationship to brain laterality and implications to function

    Neuropsychologia 28:529–546.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(90)90032-j

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. García-Cabezas MÁ
    2. Joyce MKP
    3. John YJ
    4. Zikopoulos B
    5. Barbas H

    (2017) Mirror trends of plasticity and stability indicators in primate prefrontal cortex

    The European Journal of Neuroscience 46:2392–2405.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13706

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Gazzaniga MS

    (2000) Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable the human condition?

    Brain 123 (Pt 7):1293–1326.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.7.1293

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Ge T
    2. Holmes AJ
    3. Buckner RL
    4. Smoller JW
    5. Sabuncu MR

    (2017) Heritability analysis with repeat measurements and its application to resting-state functional connectivity

    PNAS 114:5521–5526.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700765114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Geschwind N
    2. Levitsky W

    (1968) Human brain: left-right asymmetries in temporal speech region

    Science 161:186–187.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.161.3837.186

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Geschwind N

    (1970) The organization of language and the brain

    Science 170:940–944.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.170.3961.940

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 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
30. 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
31. 1. Gonzalez Alam T
    2. Karapanagiotidis T
    3. Smallwood J
    4. Jefferies E

    (2019) Degrees of lateralisation in semantic cognition: Evidence from intrinsic connectivity

    NeuroImage 202:116089.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116089

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Gonzalez Alam TRDJ
    2. Mckeown BLA
    3. Gao Z
    4. Bernhardt B
    5. Vos de Wael R
    6. Margulies DS
    7. Smallwood J
    8. Jefferies E

    (2022) A tale of two gradients: differences between the left and right hemispheres predict semantic cognition

    Brain Structure & Function 227:631–654.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-021-02374-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Gordon EM
    2. Laumann TO
    3. Marek S
    4. Raut RV
    5. Gratton C
    6. Newbold DJ
    7. Greene DJ
    8. Coalson RS
    9. Snyder AZ
    10. Schlaggar BL
    11. Petersen SE
    12. Dosenbach NUF
    13. Nelson SM

    (2020) Default-mode network streams for coupling to language and control systems

    PNAS 117:17308–17319.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005238117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Güntürkün O
    2. Ocklenburg S

    (2017) Ontogenesis of Lateralization

    Neuron 94:249–263.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.02.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Güntürkün O
    2. Ströckens F
    3. Ocklenburg S

    (2020) Brain lateralization: a comparative perspective

    Physiological Reviews 100:1019–1063.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00006.2019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Haak KV
    2. Beckmann CF

    (2020) Understanding brain organisation in the face of functional heterogeneity and functional multiplicity

    NeuroImage 220:117061.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Hahamy A
    2. Behrmann M
    3. Malach R

    (2015) The idiosyncratic brain: distortion of spontaneous connectivity patterns in autism spectrum disorder

    Nature Neuroscience 18:302–309.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3919

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Hong S-J
    2. Vos de Wael R
    3. Bethlehem RAI
    4. Lariviere S
    5. Paquola C
    6. Valk SL
    7. Milham MP
    8. Di Martino A
    9. Margulies DS
    10. Smallwood J
    11. Bernhardt BC

    (2019) Atypical functional connectome hierarchy in autism

    Nature Communications 10:1022.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08944-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Hong SJ
    2. Xu T
    3. Nikolaidis A
    4. Smallwood J
    5. Margulies DS
    6. Bernhardt B
    7. Vogelstein J
    8. Milham MP

    (2020) Toward a connectivity gradient-based framework for reproducible biomarker discovery

    NeuroImage 223:117322.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117322

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Huntenburg JM
    2. Bazin PL
    3. Margulies DS

    (2018) Large-scale gradients in human cortical organization

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22:21–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Iturria-Medina Y
    2. Pérez Fernández A
    3. Morris DM
    4. Canales-Rodríguez EJ
    5. Haroon HA
    6. García Pentón L
    7. Augath M
    8. Galán García L
    9. Logothetis N
    10. Parker GJM
    11. Melie-García L

    (2011) Brain hemispheric structural efficiency and interconnectivity rightward asymmetry in human and nonhuman primates

    Cerebral Cortex 21:56–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq058

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Ji JL
    2. Spronk M
    3. Kulkarni K
    4. Repovš G
    5. Anticevic A
    6. Cole MW

    (2019) Mapping the human brain’s cortical-subcortical functional network organization

    NeuroImage 185:35–57.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Karolis VR
    2. Corbetta M
    3. Thiebaut de Schotten M

    (2019) The architecture of functional lateralisation and its relationship to callosal connectivity in the human brain

    Nature Communications 10:1417.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09344-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Kong XZ
    2. Mathias SR
    3. Guadalupe T
    4. Glahn DC
    5. Franke B
    6. Crivello F
    7. Tzourio-Mazoyer N
    8. Fisher SE
    9. Thompson PM
    10. Francks C

    (2018) Mapping cortical brain asymmetry in 17,141 healthy individuals worldwide via the ENIGMA Consortium

    PNAS 115:E5154–E5163.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718418115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Kong X-Z
    2. Postema MC
    3. Guadalupe T
    4. de Kovel C
    5. Boedhoe PSW
    6. Hoogman M
    7. Mathias SR
    8. van Rooij D
    9. Schijven D
    10. Glahn DC
    11. Medland SE
    12. Jahanshad N
    13. Thomopoulos SI
    14. Turner JA
    15. Buitelaar J
    16. van Erp TGM
    17. Franke B
    18. Fisher SE
    19. van den Heuvel OA
    20. Schmaal L
    21. Thompson PM
    22. Francks C

    (2022) Mapping brain asymmetry in health and disease through the ENIGMA consortium

    Human Brain Mapping 43:167–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Lane C
    2. Kanjlia S
    3. Richardson H
    4. Fulton A
    5. Omaki A
    6. Bedny M

    (2017) Reduced left lateralization of language in congenitally blind individuals

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29:65–78.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Levy J

    (1977) The mammalian brain and the adaptive advantage of cerebral asymmetry

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 299:264–272.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1977.tb41913.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Liang X
    2. Zhao C
    3. Jin X
    4. Jiang Y
    5. Yang L
    6. Chen Y
    7. Gong G

    (2021) Sex-related human brain asymmetry in hemispheric functional gradients

    NeuroImage 229:117761.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117761

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Margulies DS
    2. Ghosh SS
    3. Goulas A
    4. Falkiewicz M
    5. Huntenburg JM
    6. Langs G
    7. Bezgin G
    8. Eickhoff SB
    9. Castellanos FX
    10. Petrides M
    11. Jefferies E
    12. Smallwood J

    (2016) Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization

    PNAS 113:12574–12579.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608282113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Markov NT
    2. Ercsey-Ravasz MM
    3. Ribeiro Gomes AR
    4. Lamy C
    5. Magrou L
    6. Vezoli J
    7. Misery P
    8. Falchier A
    9. Quilodran R
    10. Gariel MA
    11. Sallet J
    12. Gamanut R
    13. Huissoud C
    14. Clavagnier S
    15. Giroud P
    16. Sappey-Marinier D
    17. Barone P
    18. Dehay C
    19. Toroczkai Z
    20. Knoblauch K
    21. Van Essen DC
    22. Kennedy H

    (2014) A weighted and directed interareal connectivity matrix for macaque cerebral cortex

    Cerebral Cortex 24:17–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs270

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Mckeown B
    2. Strawson WH
    3. Wang HT
    4. Karapanagiotidis T
    5. Vos de Wael R
    6. Benkarim O
    7. Turnbull A
    8. Margulies D
    9. Jefferies E
    10. McCall C
    11. Bernhardt B
    12. Smallwood J

    (2020) The relationship between individual variation in macroscale functional gradients and distinct aspects of ongoing thought

    NeuroImage 220:117072.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117072

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Messinger A
    2. Sirmpilatze N
    3. Heuer K
    4. Loh KK
    5. Mars RB
    6. Sein J
    7. Xu T
    8. Glen D
    9. Jung B
    10. Seidlitz J
    11. Taylor P
    12. Toro R
    13. Garza-Villarreal EA
    14. Sponheim C
    15. Wang X
    16. Benn RA
    17. Cagna B
    18. Dadarwal R
    19. Evrard HC
    20. Garcia-Saldivar P
    21. Giavasis S
    22. Hartig R
    23. Lepage C
    24. Liu C
    25. Majka P
    26. Merchant H
    27. Milham MP
    28. Rosa MGP
    29. Tasserie J
    30. Uhrig L
    31. Margulies DS
    32. Klink PC

    (2021) A collaborative resource platform for non-human primate neuroimaging

    NeuroImage 226:117519.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117519

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Milham MP
    2. Ai L
    3. Koo B
    4. Xu T
    5. Amiez C
    6. Balezeau F
    7. Baxter MG
    8. Blezer ELA
    9. Brochier T
    10. Chen A
    11. Croxson PL
    12. Damatac CG
    13. Dehaene S
    14. Everling S
    15. Fair DA
    16. Fleysher L
    17. Freiwald W
    18. Froudist-Walsh S
    19. Griffiths TD
    20. Guedj C
    21. Hadj-Bouziane F
    22. Ben Hamed S
    23. Harel N
    24. Hiba B
    25. Jarraya B
    26. Jung B
    27. Kastner S
    28. Klink PC
    29. Kwok SC
    30. Laland KN
    31. Leopold DA
    32. Lindenfors P
    33. Mars RB
    34. Menon RS
    35. Messinger A
    36. Meunier M
    37. Mok K
    38. Morrison JH
    39. Nacef J
    40. Nagy J
    41. Rios MO
    42. Petkov CI
    43. Pinsk M
    44. Poirier C
    45. Procyk E
    46. Rajimehr R
    47. Reader SM
    48. Roelfsema PR
    49. Rudko DA
    50. Rushworth MFS
    51. Russ BE
    52. Sallet J
    53. Schmid MC
    54. Schwiedrzik CM
    55. Seidlitz J
    56. Sein J
    57. Shmuel A
    58. Sullivan EL
    59. Ungerleider L
    60. Thiele A
    61. Todorov OS
    62. Tsao D
    63. Wang Z
    64. Wilson CRE
    65. Yacoub E
    66. Ye FQ
    67. Zarco W
    68. Zhou Y
    69. Margulies DS
    70. Schroeder CE

    (2018) An open resource for non-human primate imaging

    Neuron 100:61–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.039

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Moeck EK
    2. Thomas NA
    3. Takarangi MKT

    (2020) Lateralized processing of emotional images: A left hemisphere memory deficit

    Emotion 20:236–247.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000554

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Murphy C
    2. Jefferies E
    3. Rueschemeyer S-A
    4. Sormaz M
    5. Wang H-T
    6. Margulies DS
    7. Smallwood J

    (2018) Distant from input: Evidence of regions within the default mode network supporting perceptually-decoupled and conceptually-guided cognition

    NeuroImage 171:393–401.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Neubauer S
    2. Gunz P
    3. Scott NA
    4. Hublin JJ
    5. Mitteroecker P

    (2020) Evolution of brain lateralization: A shared hominid pattern of endocranial asymmetry is much more variable in humans than in great apes

    Science Advances 6:eaax9935.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax9935

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Noonan MP
    2. Sallet J
    3. Mars RB
    4. Neubert FX
    5. O’Reilly JX
    6. Andersson JL
    7. Mitchell AS
    8. Bell AH
    9. Miller KL
    10. Rushworth MFS

    (2014) A neural circuit covarying with social hierarchy in macaques

    PLOS Biology 12:e1001940.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001940

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Olulade OA
    2. Seydell-Greenwald A
    3. Chambers CE
    4. Turkeltaub PE
    5. Dromerick AW
    6. Berl MM
    7. Gaillard WD
    8. Newport EL

    (2020) The neural basis of language development: Changes in lateralization over age

    PNAS 117:23477–23483.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905590117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Paquola C
    2. Vos De Wael R
    3. Wagstyl K
    4. Bethlehem RAI
    5. Hong S-J
    6. Seidlitz J
    7. Bullmore ET
    8. Evans AC
    9. Misic B
    10. Margulies DS
    11. Smallwood J
    12. Bernhardt BC

    (2019) Microstructural and functional gradients are increasingly dissociated in transmodal cortices

    PLOS Biology 17:e3000284.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000284

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Park B-Y
    2. Hong S-J
    3. Valk SL
    4. Paquola C
    5. Benkarim O
    6. Bethlehem RAI
    7. Di Martino A
    8. Milham MP
    9. Gozzi A
    10. Yeo BTT
    11. Smallwood J
    12. Bernhardt BC

    (2021) Differences in subcortico-cortical interactions identified from connectome and microcircuit models in autism

    Nature Communications 12:2225.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21732-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Piervincenzi C
    2. Petrilli A
    3. Marini A
    4. Caulo M
    5. Committeri G
    6. Sestieri C

    (2016) Multimodal assessment of hemispheric lateralization for language and its relevance for behavior

    NeuroImage 142:351–370.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.08.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Pollack C
    2. Price GR

    (2019) Neurocognitive mechanisms of digit processing and their relationship with mathematics competence

    NeuroImage 185:245–254.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Postema MC
    2. van Rooij D
    3. Anagnostou E
    4. Arango C
    5. Auzias G
    6. Behrmann M
    7. Filho GB
    8. Calderoni S
    9. Calvo R
    10. Daly E
    11. Deruelle C
    12. Di Martino A
    13. Dinstein I
    14. Duran FLS
    15. Durston S
    16. Ecker C
    17. Ehrlich S
    18. Fair D
    19. Fedor J
    20. Feng X
    21. Fitzgerald J
    22. Floris DL
    23. Freitag CM
    24. Gallagher L
    25. Glahn DC
    26. Gori I
    27. Haar S
    28. Hoekstra L
    29. Jahanshad N
    30. Jalbrzikowski M
    31. Janssen J
    32. King JA
    33. Kong XZ
    34. Lazaro L
    35. Lerch JP
    36. Luna B
    37. Martinho MM
    38. McGrath J
    39. Medland SE
    40. Muratori F
    41. Murphy CM
    42. Murphy DGM
    43. O’Hearn K
    44. Oranje B
    45. Parellada M
    46. Puig O
    47. Retico A
    48. Rosa P
    49. Rubia K
    50. Shook D
    51. Taylor MJ
    52. Tosetti M
    53. Wallace GL
    54. Zhou F
    55. Thompson PM
    56. Fisher SE
    57. Buitelaar JK
    58. Francks C

    (2019) Altered structural brain asymmetry in autism spectrum disorder in a study of 54 datasets

    Nature Communications 10:4958.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13005-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Raemaekers M
    2. Schellekens W
    3. Petridou N
    4. Ramsey NF

    (2018) Knowing left from right: asymmetric functional connectivity during resting state

    Brain Structure & Function 223:1909–1922.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-017-1604-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Robinson EC
    2. Jbabdi S
    3. Glasser MF
    4. Andersson J
    5. Burgess GC
    6. Harms MP
    7. Smith SM
    8. Van Essen DC
    9. Jenkinson M

    (2014) MSM: a new flexible framework for Multimodal Surface Matching

    NeuroImage 100:414–426.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.069

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Sha Z
    2. Schijven D
    3. Carrion-Castillo A
    4. Joliot M
    5. Mazoyer B
    6. Fisher SE
    7. Crivello F
    8. Francks C

    (2021) The genetic architecture of structural left-right asymmetry of the human brain

    Nature Human Behaviour 5:1226–1239.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01069-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Smallwood J
    2. Bernhardt BC
    3. Leech R
    4. Bzdok D
    5. Jefferies E
    6. Margulies DS

    (2021) The default mode network in cognition: a topographical perspective

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 22:503–513.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00474-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Spocter MA
    2. Sherwood CC
    3. Schapiro SJ
    4. Hopkins WD

    (2020) Reproducibility of leftward planum temporale asymmetries in two genetically isolated populations of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 287:20201320.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1320

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Sun Y
    2. Li J
    3. Suckling J
    4. Feng L

    (2017) Asymmetry of hemispheric network topology reveals dissociable processes between functional and structural brain connectome in community-living elders

    Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 9:361.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2017.00361

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Szaflarski JP
    2. Holland SK
    3. Schmithorst VJ
    4. Byars AW

    (2006) fMRI study of language lateralization in children and adults

    Human Brain Mapping 27:202–212.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20177

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Tetereva AO
    2. Balaev VV
    3. Kartashov SI
    4. Ushakov VL
    5. Ivanitsky AM
    6. Martynova OV

    (2020) Asymmetry of amygdala resting-state functional connectivity in healthy human brain

    Neuroreport 31:17–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000001353

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Toga AW
    2. Thompson PM

    (2003) Mapping brain asymmetry

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 4:37–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Tuckute G
    2. Paunov A
    3. Kean H
    4. Small H
    5. Mineroff Z
    6. Blank I
    7. Fedorenko E

    (2022) Frontal language areas do not emerge in the absence of temporal language areas: A case study of an individual born without A left temporal lobe

    Neuropsychologia 169:108184.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Turnbull A
    2. Karapanagiotidis T
    3. Wang H-T
    4. Bernhardt BC
    5. Leech R
    6. Margulies D
    7. Schooler J
    8. Jefferies E
    9. Smallwood J

    (2020) Reductions in task positive neural systems occur with the passage of time and are associated with changes in ongoing thought

    Scientific Reports 10:9912.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66698-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. Book

    1. Tzourio-Mazoyer N

    (2016) Intra- and Inter-Hemispheric Connectivity Supporting Hemispheric Specialization, Micro-, Meso- and Macro-Connectomics of the Brain

    Springer.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27777-6_9

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Urbanski M
    2. Bréchemier M-L
    3. Garcin B
    4. Bendetowicz D
    5. Thiebaut de Schotten M
    6. Foulon C
    7. Rosso C
    8. Clarençon F
    9. Dupont S
    10. Pradat-Diehl P
    11. Labeyrie M-A
    12. Levy R
    13. Volle E

    (2016) Reasoning by analogy requires the left frontal pole: lesion-deficit mapping and clinical implications

    Brain 139:1783–1799.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww072

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. Preprint

    1. Vainik U
    2. Paquola C
    3. Wang X
    4. Zheng Y
    5. Bernhardt B
    6. Misic B
    7. Dagher A

    (2020) Heritability of Cortical Morphology Reflects a Sensory-Fugal Plasticity Gradient

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.366419

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Valk SL
    2. Xu T
    3. Margulies DS
    4. Masouleh SK
    5. Paquola C
    6. Goulas A
    7. Kochunov P
    8. Smallwood J
    9. Yeo BTT
    10. Bernhardt BC
    11. Eickhoff SB

    (2020) Shaping brain structure: Genetic and phylogenetic axes of macroscale organization of cortical thickness

    Science Advances 6:eabb3417.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb3417

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Valk SL
    2. Xu T
    3. Paquola C
    4. Park B-Y
    5. Bethlehem RAI
    6. Vos de Wael R
    7. Royer J
    8. Masouleh SK
    9. Bayrak Ş
    10. Kochunov P
    11. Yeo BTT
    12. Margulies D
    13. Smallwood J
    14. Eickhoff SB
    15. Bernhardt BC

    (2022) Genetic and phylogenetic uncoupling of structure and function in human transmodal cortex

    Nature Communications 13:2341.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29886-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Vallortigara G
    2. Rogers LJ
    3. Bisazza A

    (1999) Possible evolutionary origins of cognitive brain lateralization

    Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews 30:164–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0173(99)00012-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Van Essen DC
    2. Smith SM
    3. Barch DM
    4. Behrens TEJ
    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
82. 1. Ventura P
    2. Delgado J
    3. Ferreira M
    4. Farinha-Fernandes A
    5. Guerreiro JC
    6. Faustino B
    7. Leite I
    8. Wong AC-N

    (2019) Hemispheric asymmetry in holistic processing of words

    Laterality 24:98–112.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2018.1475483

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. Book

    1. Vilain A
    2. Schwartz JL
    3. Abry C
    4. Vauclair J

    (2011) Primate Communication and Human Language

    John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.1

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Vos de Wael R
    2. Benkarim O
    3. Paquola C
    4. Lariviere S
    5. Royer J
    6. Tavakol S
    7. Xu T
    8. Hong SJ
    9. Langs G
    10. Valk S
    11. Misic B
    12. Milham M
    13. Margulies D
    14. Smallwood J
    15. Bernhardt BC

    (2020) BrainSpace: a toolbox for the analysis of macroscale gradients in neuroimaging and connectomics datasets

    Communications Biology 3:103.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-0794-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Wang S
    2. Van der Haegen L
    3. Tao L
    4. Cai Q

    (2019) Brain functional organization associated with language lateralization

    Cerebral Cortex 29:4312–4320.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy313

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. Preprint

    1. Wang Y
    2. Royer J
    3. Park B
    4. de Wael RV
    5. Larivière S
    6. Tavakol S
    7. Rodriguez-Cruces R
    8. Paquola C
    9. Hong S-J
    10. Margulies DS
    11. Smallwood J
    12. Valk SL
    13. Evans AC
    14. Bernhardt BC

    (2021) Long-Range Connections Mirror and Link Microarchitectural and Cognitive Hierarchies in the Human Brain

    bioRx.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.25.465692

    • Google Scholar
87. Preprint

    1. Williams LZJ
    2. Fitzgibbon SP
    3. Bozek J
    4. Winkler AM
    5. Dimitrova R
    6. Poppe T
    7. Schuh A
    8. Makropoulos A
    9. Cupitt J
    10. O’Muircheartaigh J
    11. Duff EP
    12. Cordero-Grande L
    13. Price AN
    14. Hajnal JV
    15. Rueckert D
    16. Smith SM
    17. Edwards AD
    18. Robinson EC

    (2021) Structural and functional asymmetry of the neonatal cerebral cortex

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.13.464206

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Xiang L
    2. Crow TJ
    3. Hopkins WD
    4. Roberts N

    (2020) Comparison of surface area and cortical thickness asymmetry in the human and chimpanzee brain

    Cerebral Cortex bhaa202:bhaa202.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa202

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Xifra-Porxas A
    2. Kassinopoulos M
    3. Mitsis GD

    (2021) Physiological and motion signatures in static and time-varying functional connectivity and their subject identifiability

    eLife 10:e62324.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62324

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Xu T
    2. Yang Z
    3. Jiang L
    4. Xing XX
    5. Zuo XN

    (2015) A connectome computation system for discovery science of brain

    Science Bulletin 60:86–95.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-014-0698-3

    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Xu T
    2. Nenning KH
    3. Schwartz E
    4. Hong SJ
    5. Vogelstein JT
    6. Goulas A
    7. Fair DA
    8. Schroeder CE
    9. Margulies DS
    10. Smallwood J
    11. Milham MP
    12. Langs G

    (2020) Cross-species functional alignment reveals evolutionary hierarchy within the connectome

    NeuroImage 223:117346.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117346

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Yarkoni T
    2. Poldrack RA
    3. Nichols TE
    4. Van Essen DC
    5. Wager TD

    (2011) Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data

    Nature Methods 8:665–670.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Zago L
    2. Petit L
    3. Mellet E
    4. Jobard G
    5. Crivello F
    6. Joliot M
    7. Mazoyer B
    8. Tzourio-Mazoyer N

    (2016) The association between hemispheric specialization for language production and for spatial attention depends on left-hand preference strength

    Neuropsychologia 93:394–406.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Zhong S
    2. Wei L
    3. Zhao C
    4. Yang L
    5. Di Z
    6. Francks C
    7. Gong G

    (2021) Interhemispheric relationship of genetic influence on human brain connectivity

    Cerebral Cortex 31:77–88.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa207

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Bin Wan

   1. Otto Hahn Group Cognitive Neurogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
   2. International Max Planck Research School on Neuroscience of Communication: Function, Structure, and Plasticity (IMPRS NeuroCom), Leipzig, Germany
   3. Department of Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig and Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
   4. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behavior), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   wanb.psych@outlook.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9077-3354

2. Şeyma Bayrak

   1. Otto Hahn Group Cognitive Neurogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
   2. Department of Cognitive Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig and Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
   3. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behavior), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany

   Contribution

   Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Ting Xu

   Center for the Developing Brain, Child Mind Institute, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. H Lina Schaare

   1. Otto Hahn Group Cognitive Neurogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
   2. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behavior), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4259-0793

5. Richard AI Bethlehem

   Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Data curation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0714-0685

6. Boris C Bernhardt

   McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montréal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

   Contribution

   Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9256-6041

7. Sofie L Valk

   1. Otto Hahn Group Cognitive Neurogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
   2. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7: Brain and Behavior), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany
   3. Institute of Systems Neuroscience, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   valk@cbs.mpg.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2998-6849

• 3,203

  views

• 781

  downloads

• 24

  citations

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