, 2012), much less is known about the effects of such stressors on connectivity circuit features. Such data, especially if they show different effects across the life span, could add another layer of explanatory power to the proposal to decompose psychopathology across circuit profiles linked to causal factors and symptom clusters. There are several limitations that warrant consideration. First, in marshaling empirical evidence to support our model, we chose to focus on specific network components where dysfunction is clearly evident across disorders (e.g., DLPFC-amygdala; MPFC-ventral

striatum). However, a key feature of functional integration is its multinodal nature. By considering the coupling of two network nodes in isolation, we may overlook important multidimensional alterations that are present Cisplatin chemical structure in the larger network context. Graph analytic approaches derived from complex network analysis may be especially valuable for determining the holistic patterns of network dysfunction that map best onto symptom domains. Second, this website we do not explicitly take task-specific effects on connectivity into account, and have instead opted to generalize from the body of available connectivity data. In terms of the relationship to latent cognitive processes, it is not clear how frontoparietal

connectivity during an n-back working memory task is meaningfully different from frontoparietal connectivity during a Sternberg working memory task (to use one example). Nor is it evident how frontoparietal connectivity during either of those tasks differs from frontoparietal connectivity observed during a cued attention task. This issue is related to larger problem within cognitive neuroscience: the lack of a valid taxonomy of cognitive processes (Poldrack et al., 2011). We do not have a consensus understanding of the discrete components

that comprise cognition, their relationships to one another, or how they map onto specific experimental others tasks (Badre, 2011). Experimental paradigms frequently index multiple cognitive factors, and performance on different tasks that purport to measure the same cognitive process (e.g., working memory) often correlate weakly, reflecting the ambiguity of even well-studied cognitive constructs (Kane et al., 2007 and Poldrack et al., 2011). These limitations lower our level of precision in linking specific cognitive processes to clinical symptoms, risk factors, and brain connectivity networks. As the field moves toward an empirically derived classification of psychopathology, one based on quantitative measures of behavior and neurobiology, illuminating the latent structure of cognition will be key. Especially promising approaches include the incorporation of cognitive factor analysis in task-based fMRI data analysis (Badre and Wagner, 2004), online cognitive ontologies that enable classifier-based and meta-analytic parsing of cognitive constructs (Bilder et al., 2009 and Poldrack et al.