The functional repertoire of any system is ultimately determined by its structural composition. Equally important in the brain, the underlying structure is continually reshaped by function in relation to experience. This interdependence underscores the importance of exploring the relationship between structure and function in neuroscience. Cellular electrophysiology provides a window on function but only with sparse sampling. Likewise, invasive tract tracing, especially performed postmortem, is similarly limited in its areal coverage. Recent developments have enabled whole brain characterization of both neuronal activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and large fiber tracts using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). The combination of these two imaging modalities permits a systems level interrogation of functional interactions and their structural underpinnings. However, most of the existing dual imaging studies are limited in the scope of their functional measures by reliance on task performance to elicit measurable neuronal activity (
Toosy et al. 2004;
Baird et al. 2005) (for a review of this extensive literature; see
Rykhlevskaia et al. 2008). First, each task activates a very restricted set of brain regions, and second, a “wired together” interpretation of coactivations must be dissociated from the confound of stimulus driven synchrony. If the goal is a global characterization of structure/function relationships in the brain, reliance on task performance may not be the most efficient approach.
An alternative to the task-based approach to studying the brain's functional organization is to examine the organization of its ongoing functional activity. A factor motivating this approach is the fact that the majority of the brain's enormous energy budget is devoted to its ongoing functional activity rather than evoked activity (
Raichle and Mintun 2006). In fact, less than 5% of its energy budget is devoted to momentary task demands (
Raichle and Mintun 2006). Ongoing fluctuations in the blood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD) fMRI signal provide a unique view of the organization of intrinsic activity. The ongoing activity revealed by the fMRI BOLD signal persists across different states of consciousness including wakefulness (
Biswal et al. 1995;
Lowe et al. 1998;
Cordes et al. 2000;
Greicius et al. 2003), sleep (
Horovitz et al. 2008;
Larson-Prior et al. 2009), anesthesia induced unresponsiveness (
Johnston et al. 2008), and coma (
Boly et al. 2008). Ongoing activity exhibits correlated signaling within neuroanatomically defined systems that replicate with remarkable precision responses to experimentally administered tasks (
Vincent et al. 2007). In this way, multiple functional networks can be delineated from a single scan without the need for any task performance (
Fox and Raichle 2007).
The focus of the current study is to map structural and functional connections between the human thalamus and cortex. The thalamus is a core structure of the brain that contains primary relay nuclei that are highly specific in their connections with distinct zones of the cerebral cortex. A seminal study has previously investigated the structural connectivity of the human thalamocortical system using DTI and probabilistic tractography (
Behrens, Johansen-Berg, et al. 2003). A specific question we were interested in was how well structural information derived from DTI compares with functional information derived from fMRI of intrinsic brain activity (
Zhang et al. 2008). Furthermore, how well does structural and functional MR mapping compare with “gold standard” histological parcellation of the human thalamus and connectional anatomy inferred from non-human primates? We hypothesized that, in general, correlations in intrinsic neuronal activity should correspond well with connectional anatomy derived from DTI, but important differences may be observed given that complex neuronal interactions occur via polysynaptic pathways and given that the strength of an anatomical connection is not always reflective of the importance of its functional role (
Van Horn et al. 2000;
Sherman and Guillery 2006). Therefore, in considering thalamocortical “connectivity”, defining a
functional connectivity map may be just as important as defining a
structural connectivity map of the thalamocortical system, each providing unique information relevant to the physiology of the system.