Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Resource
  • Published:

Increasing diversity in connectomics with the Chinese Human Connectome Project

Nature Neuroscience volume 26, pages 163–172 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Cultural differences and biological diversity play important roles in shaping human brain structure and function. To date, most large-scale multimodal neuroimaging datasets have been obtained primarily from people living in Western countries, omitting the crucial contrast with populations living in other regions. The Chinese Human Connectome Project (CHCP) aims to address these resource and knowledge gaps by acquiring imaging, genetic and behavioral data from a large sample of participants living in an Eastern culture. The CHCP collected multimodal neuroimaging data from healthy Chinese adults using a protocol comparable to that of the Human Connectome Project. Comparisons between the CHCP and Human Connectome Project revealed both commonalities and distinctions in brain structure, function and connectivity. The corresponding large-scale brain parcellations were highly reproducible across the two datasets, with the language processing task showing the largest differences. The CHCP dataset is publicly available in an effort to facilitate transcultural and cross-ethnic brain–mind studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Similarities and differences in the structural and functional measures between the CHCP and HCP data.
Fig. 2: Differences in the brainnetome atlases and structural connections between the CHCP and HCP.
Fig. 3: Differences in the seven-network atlases between the CHCP and HCP.
Fig. 4: Brain activations in the tasks from the CHCP and HCP data.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All CHCP data (including all brain imaging modalities: T1W/T2W structure images, DWI, resting-state fMRI and task-evoked fMRI; essential behavioral and demographic information data) are available on the Science Data Bank website at https://doi.org/10.11922/sciencedb.01374 and the CHCP website at https://www.Chinese-HCP.cn. Data sharing plan for nonimaging data (including physiological data, tfMRI onset/offset and duration, full behavioral data and genetic data) is to make them available as soon as feasible via quarterly release on the Science Data Bank and CHCP websites, after careful data processing, quality control and privacy protection. HCP data were provided by the Human Connectome Project (https://humanconnectome.org/), WU-Minn Consortium (Principal Investigators: D. Van Essen and K. Ugurbil; 1U54MH091657) funded by the 16 NIH institutes and centers that support the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research; and by the McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience at Washington University.

Code availability

All the codes used in this study are available at the GitHub repository (https://github.com/ChineseHCP/CHCP).

References

  1. Lenroot, R. K. & Giedd, J. N. The changing impact of genes and environment on brain development during childhood and adolescence: initial findings from a neuroimaging study of pediatric twins. Dev. Psychopathol. 20, 1161–1175 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tooley, U. A., Bassett, D. S. & Mackey, A. P. Environmental influences on the pace of brain development. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 372–384 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kang, H. J. et al. Spatio-temporal transcriptome of the human brain. Nature 478, 483–489 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Han, S. & Northoff, G. Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: a transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 646–654 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kitayama, S. & Salvador, C. E. Culture embrained: going beyond the nature-nurture dichotomy. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 841–854 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Biswal, B. B. et al. Toward discovery science of human brain function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4734–4739 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Essen, D. C. et al. The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: an overview. NeuroImage 80, 62–79 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Milham, M. P. et al. Assessment of the impact of shared brain imaging data on the scientific literature. Nat. Commun. 9, 2818 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Glasser, M. F. et al. The Human Connectome Project’s neuroimaging approach. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1175–1187 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Glasser, M. F. et al. A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex. Nature 536, 171–178 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Barch, D. M. et al. Function in the human connectome: task-fMRI and individual differences in behavior. NeuroImage 80, 169–189 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Smith, S. M. et al. A positive-negative mode of population covariation links brain connectivity, demographics and behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1565–1567 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Moser, D. A. et al. An integrated brain–behavior model for working memory. Mol. Psychiatry 23, 1974–1980 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Elam, J. S. et al. The Human Connectome Project: a retrospective. NeuroImage 244, 118543 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Essen, D. C. et al. The Human Connectome Project: a data acquisition perspective. NeuroImage 62, 2222–2231 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Marcus, D. S. et al. Human Connectome Project informatics: quality control, database services, and data visualization. NeuroImage 80, 202–219 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson, K. M. et al. Heritability of individualized cortical network topography. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2016271118 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zuo, X. N. et al. Toward reliable characterization of functional homogeneity in the human brain: preprocessing, scan duration, imaging resolution and computational space. NeuroImage 65, 374–386 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chen, B. et al. Individual variability and test-retest reliability revealed by ten repeated resting-state brain scans over one month. PLoS ONE 10, 1–21 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Yan, C. G., Wang, X. D. & Lu, B. DPABISurf: data processing & analysis for brain imaging on surface. Sci. Bull. 66, 2453–2455 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fan, L. et al. The Human Brainnetome Atlas: a new brain atlas based on connectional architecture. Cereb. Cortex 26, 3508–3526 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Han, M. et al. Individualized cortical parcellation based on diffusion MRI tractography. Cereb. Cortex 30, 3198–3208 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yeo, B. T. et al. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J. Neurophysiol. 106, 1125–1165 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kong, R. et al. Spatial topography of individual-specific cortical networks predicts human cognition, personality, and emotion. Cereb. Cortex 29, 2533–2551 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Massey, F. J. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 46, 68–78 (1951).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Huttenlocher, P. R. Neural Plasticity: The Effects of Environment on the Development of the Cerebral Cortex (Harvard Univ. Press, 2002).

  27. Mueller, S. et al. Individual variability in functional connectivity architecture of the human brain. Neuron 77, 586–595 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gratton, C. et al. Functional brain networks are dominated by stable group and individual factors, not cognitive or daily variation. Neuron 98, 439–452 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Margulies, D. S. et al. Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12574–12579 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Huntenburg, J. M., Bazin, P. L. & Margulies, D. S. Large-scale gradients in human cortical organization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 21–31 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Friederici, A. D. The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. Physiol. Rev. 91, 1357–1392 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Siok, W. T., Perfetti, C. A., Jin, Z. & Tan, L. H. Biological abnormality of impaired reading is constrained by culture. Nature 431, 71–76 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ge, J. et al. Cross-language differences in the brain network subserving intelligible speech. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 2972–2977 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Boroditsky, L. Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cogn. Psychol. 43, 1–22 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tang, Y. et al. Arithmetic processing in the brain shaped by cultures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10775–10780 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Binder, J. R. et al. Mapping anterior temporal lobe language areas with fMRI: a multicenter normative study. NeuroImage 54, 1465–1475 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Baaré, W. F. C. et al. Quantitative genetic modeling of variation in human brain morphology. Cereb. Cortex 11, 816–824 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Naqvi, S. et al. Shared heritability of human face and brain shape. Nat. Genet. 53, 830–839 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Grasby, K. L. et al. The genetic architecture of the human cerebral cortex. Science 367, eaay6690 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Peper, J. S., Brouwer, R. M., Boomsma, D. I., Kahn, R. S. & Hulshoff Pol, H. E. Genetic influences on human brain structure: a review of brain imaging studies in twins. Hum. Brain Mapp. 28, 464–473 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Teeuw, J. et al. Genetic influences on the development of cerebral cortical thickness during childhood and adolescence in a Dutch longitudinal twin sample: the brainscale study. Cereb. Cortex 29, 978–993 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thompson, P. M. et al. Genetic influences on brain structure. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 1253–1258 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fan, C. C. et al. Modeling the 3D geometry of the cortical surface with genetic ancestry. Curr. Biol. 25, 1988–1992 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Arnatkeviciute, A., Fulcher, B. D., Bellgrove, M. A. & Fornito, A. Where the genome meets the connectome: understanding how genes shape human brain connectivity. NeuroImage 244, 118570 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Han, S. & Ma, Y. A culture-behavior-brain loop model of human development. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 666–676 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Casey, B. J. et al. The adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 43–54 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Bookheimer, S. Y. et al. The lifespan Human Connectome Project in Aging: an overview. NeuroImage 185, 335–348 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dong, H. M. et al. Charting brain growth in tandem with brain templates at school age. Sci. Bull. 65, 1924–1934 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Liu, S. et al. Chinese color nest project: an accelerated longitudinal brain-mind cohort. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 52, 101020 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dong, H. M., Margulies, D. S., Zuo, X. N. & Holmes, A. J. Shifting gradients of macroscale cortical organization mark the transition from childhood to adolescence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024448118 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Sudlow, C. et al. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 12, 1–10 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bethlehem, R. A. I. et al. Brain charts for the human lifespan. Nature 604, 525–533 (2022).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Miller, K. L. et al. Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1523–1536 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Littlejohns, T. J. et al. The UK Biobank imaging enhancement of 100,000 participants: rationale, data collection, management and future directions. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–12 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Xu, Q. et al. CHIMGEN: a Chinese imaging genetics cohort to enhance cross-ethnic and cross-geographic brain research. Mol. Psychiatry 25, 517–529 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schumann, G. et al. The IMAGEN study: reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology. Mol. Psychiatry 15, 1128–1139 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Xu, J. et al. Global urbanicity is associated with brain and behaviour in young people. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 279–293 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Marek, S. et al. Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals. Nature 603, 654–660 (2022).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Poo, M. M. et al. China Brain Project: basic neuroscience, brain diseases, and brain-inspired computing. Neuron 92, 591–596 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Gao, P. et al. A Chinese multi-modal neuroimaging data release for increasing diversity of human brain mapping. Sci. Data 9, 286 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Li, J. et al. Cross-ethnicity/race generalization failure of behavioral prediction from resting-state functional connectivity. Sci. Adv. 8, eabj1812 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nisbett, R. E., Choi, I., Peng, K. & Norenzayan, A. Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol. Rev. 108, 291–310 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S. & Lee, A. Y. “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychol. Sci. 10, 321–326 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gelfand, M. J. et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Yamashita, A. et al. Harmonization of resting-state functional MRI data across multiple imaging sites via the separation of site differences into sampling bias and measurement bias. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000042 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Tian, D. et al. A deep learning-based multisite neuroimage harmonization framework established with a traveling-subject dataset. NeuroImage 257, 119297 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Yu, M. et al. Statistical harmonization corrects site effects in functional connectivity measurements from multi-site fMRI data. Hum. Brain Mapp. 39, 4213–4227 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wilker, E. H. et al. Green space and mortality following ischemic stroke. Environ. Res. 133, 42–48 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Colodro-Conde, L. et al. Association between population density and genetic risk for schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 75, 901–910 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D. & Jamison, D. T. Health, wealth, and welfare. Financ. Dev. 41, 10–15 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Gupta, P. et al. Satellite remote sensing of particulate matter and air quality assessment over global cities. Atmos. Environ. 40, 5880–5892 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Gordon, E. M. et al. Precision functional mapping of individual human brains. Neuron 95, 791–807 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Glasser, M. F. et al. The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project. NeuroImage 80, 105–124 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Pierpaoli, C. in Diffusion MRI (ed. Jones, D. K.) Ch. 18 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

  76. Makris, N. et al. Morphometry of in vivo human white matter association pathways with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Ann. Neurol. 42, 951–962 (1997).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Pajevic, S. & Pierpaoli, C. Color schemes to represent the orientation of anisotropic tissues from diffusion tensor data: application to white matter fiber tract mapping in the human brain. Magn. Reson. Med. 42, 526–540 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Eickhoff, S. B. et al. A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data. NeuroImage 25, 1325–1335 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Schaefer, A. et al. Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from Intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. Cereb. Cortex 28, 3095–3114 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Roberts, J. A., Perry, A., Roberts, G., Mitchell, P. B. & Breakspear, M. Consistency-based thresholding of the human connectome. NeuroImage 145, 118–129 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Lashkari, D., Vul, E., Kanwisher, N. & Golland, P. Discovering structure in the space of fMRI selectivity profiles. NeuroImage 50, 1085–1098 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Dice, L. R. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26, 297–302 (1945).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (81790650, 81790651, 81727808, 81627901 to J.H.G. and 31771253 to J.G.); the National Science and Technology Innovation 2030 Program (2021ZD0200500 to J.H.G.); the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (Z171100000117012 and Z181100001518003 to J.H.G.); the Collaborative Research Fund of the Chinese Institute for Brain Research (2020-NKX-PT-02 to J.H.G.) and Changping Laboratory. J.H.G. was supported by Shenzhen Science and Technology Research Funding Program (JCYJ20200109144801736). X.N.Z. receives support from the start-up funds for Leading Talents at Beijing Normal University and the National Basic Science Data Center, Chinese Data-sharing Warehouse for In-vivo Imaging Brain (NBSDC-DB-15). We thank the National Center for Protein Sciences at Peking University for assistance with data acquisition. We thank the Science Data Bank for facilitation on data sharing.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Jianqiao Ge, Guoyuan Yang.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for MRI Research, Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Jianqiao Ge, Sizhong Zhou, Weiwei Men, Lang Qin, Hai Li & Jia-Hong Gao

  2. McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Jianqiao Ge, Hai Li & Jia-Hong Gao

  3. Beijing City Key Laboratory for Medical Physics and Engineering, Institution of Heavy Ion Physics, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Jianqiao Ge, Sizhong Zhou, Weiwei Men, Lang Qin & Jia-Hong Gao

  4. Advanced Research Institute of Multidisciplinary Sciences, School of Medical Technology, School of Life Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

    Guoyuan Yang

  5. McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Meizhen Han & Xi-Nian Zuo

  6. Changping Laboratory, Beijing, China

    Bingjiang Lyu, Hesheng Liu & Jia-Hong Gao

  7. Beijing Intelligent Brain Cloud, Inc., Beijing, China

    Hai Li & Haobo Wang

  8. Center for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research & Key Laboratory of Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China

    Hengyi Rao

  9. Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing, China

    Zaixu Cui & Jia-Hong Gao

  10. National Biomedical Imaging Center, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Jia-Hong Gao

Authors
  1. Jianqiao Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guoyuan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meizhen Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sizhong Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Weiwei Men
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lang Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bingjiang Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hai Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Haobo Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hengyi Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Zaixu Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Hesheng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Xi-Nian Zuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jia-Hong Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.G., X.N.Z. and J.H.G. conceptualized the study and framework design. Data was collected by J.G., G.Y., M.H., S.Z. and W.M. and analyzed by J.G., G.Y., M.H., H. Li and J.H.G. The platform for data sharing was built by H. Li and H.W. The first draft of the manuscript was written by J.G. and G.Y. and the manuscript was edited by J.G., G.Y., L.Q., B.L., H.R., Z.C., H. Liu., X.N.Z and J.H.G.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jia-Hong Gao.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Neuroscience thanks B.T. Thomas Yeo and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Reliability in tfMRI activation maps measured by ICC for both the CHCP and HCP data.

The image-wise intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values in seven tasks were calculated across the two different phase-encoding runs for both the CHCP (left column) and HCP (right column) data. Together with the tfMRI activation maps shown in Fig. 4a, these results suggested that the brain areas which were significantly activated in tfMRI tend to show higher ICC values than brain areas which were not activated.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Maps of two-sample t-test and effect size on tfMRI activation for CHCP vs. HCP.

Sample sizes were 140 in both the CHCP and HCP groups. a, Group-level difference of the CHCP vs. HCP in the brain activations for the seven tasks. The white contours represent the area with a threshold (z ≤ −5.13 and z ≥ + 5.13, P < 0.05 vertex-level, two-sided, Bonferroni corrected) across all 91,282 grayordinates. b, The between-group effect size of the CHCP vs. HCP in the seven tasks. The effect size was measured by the index of Cohen’s d, and the white contours represent the areas with Cohen’s d values larger than 0.5 or smaller than −0.5.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Distribution of the activation intensity in tasks from the CHCP and HCP data.

Sample sizes were 140 in both the CHCP and HCP groups. a, Gambling task. No significant differences were found in distributions between the CHCP and HCP datasets with a threshold of two-sided P < 0.001 FDR corrected. b, Relational task. No significant differences were found. c, Social task. The difference in the distributions of the ventral attention network was marginally significant between groups (P = 0.003, two-sided, FDR corrected). d, Emotion task. The distributions of the visual and dorsal attention networks were significantly different between the CHCP and HCP (P < 0.001, two-sided, FDR corrected). e, Working memory task. The visual, dorsal attention, frontoparietal and somatomotor networks were significantly different between groups (P < 0.001, two-sided, FDR corrected). The results for the motor and language tasks are shown in Fig. 4b. The density refers to the probability of the subject number under a certain contrast value, and all of the statistics shown in this figure were based on the K-S test with FDR correction.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Volume-based activation maps in seven tasks from the CHCP and HCP data.

For volume-based group-level analyses, to estimate the average effects across runs for each subject, FEAT was first used, and then, FMRIB’s local analysis of mixed effects (FLAME) tools were employed to estimate the average effects of interest for each group. The group maps are displayed with a threshold of z =± 5 (P < 10−5 voxel-level, two-sided, uncorrected). The left and right columns show the results of the activation maps for the seven tasks from the CHCP and HCP datasets, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Topographic difference on the resting-state 7-network atlases between CHCP and HCP groups.

Sample sizes were 140 in both the CHCP and HCP groups. The topographic difference on 7-network atlases across CHCP and HCP were shown with parcel size correction (left) and without parcel size correction (right) in the left and right hemispheres (two-sided Pperm < 0.001 for each value of 1-Dice coefficient, permutation test between CHCP and HCP, FDR corrected).

Extended Data Fig. 6 Topographic difference on the dMRI brainnetome atlas across the CHCP and HCP data.

Sample sizes were 140 in both the CHCP and HCP groups. The distribution of variability (1-Dice coefficient) across brain regions between the CHCP and HCP brainnetome atlases were shown with parcel size correction (left) and without parcel size correction (right).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Test for reliability of the brainnetome atlas for the CHCP and HCP data.

The brainnetome atlases are highly consistent across the “Parcellation” sample (n = 110) and “Validation” sample (n = 110) for both groups. A total of 89.1% and 88.9% of the vertices were assigned to the same regions across the “Parcellation” and “Replication” brainnetome atlases for the CHCP and HCP subsets, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Test for reliability of the 7-network atlas for the CHCP and HCP data.

The 7-network estimates are highly consistent across the “Parcellation” sample (n = 110) and “Validation” sample (n = 110) for both groups. A total of 95.2% and 95.0% of the vertices were assigned to the same networks across the “Parcellation” and “Replication” 7-network atlases for the CHCP and HCP subsets, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Distributions of the accuracy measures from behavioral data during the task fMRI for the CHCP and HCP subsets.

The distributions of accuracy are shown in histograms. The mean response accuracy values were calculated for each subset (relational: CHCP: 77.63%, HCP: 77.49%; social: CHCP: 80.09%, HCP: 90.49%; emotion: CHCP: 95.82%, HCP: 97.52%; working memory: CHCP: 90.47%, HCP: 88.25%; language: CHCP: 90.31%, HCP: 89.04%).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1–7 and References 1–12.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ge, J., Yang, G., Han, M. et al. Increasing diversity in connectomics with the Chinese Human Connectome Project. Nat Neurosci 26, 163–172 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01215-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01215-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing