Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select neural system and formulate analytical question
1 week
Choose a specific neural system or circuit and formulate a precise analytical question about its anatomical organisation or functional connectivity. Accessible alternative: all routes for this outcome use freely available neuroanatomical atlases and open neuroimaging datasets — no physical laboratory access is required. The Allen Brain Atlas provides detailed human and mouse brain connectivity data; the Human Connectome Project provides open-access structural and functional MRI datasets; OpenNeuro provides freely deposited neuroimaging data across many species and experimental designs.
Proof required
Submit your neural system selection, your specific analytical question (what aspect of anatomical organisation or functional connectivity you will investigate), your identified data source (Allen Brain Atlas, HCP, OpenNeuro, or published connectivity data with accession number), and a brief description of the biological significance of your chosen system — why this system's organisation is important for understanding neural function.
What gets checked
- Neural system is specific — not 'the brain' or 'the limbic system' but a defined circuit or pathway (e.g., 'the hippocampal-entorhinal circuit involved in spatial navigation and memory consolidation')
- Analytical question is answerable from the data source identified — the question must be matched to what the dataset actually contains
- Biological significance statement connects the anatomical question to a functional or clinical relevance — why does the organisation of this system matter?
Common mistakes
- Choosing a system too broad to characterise in a single analysis — a complete analysis of the entire prefrontal cortex is not feasible at this level; select a specific circuit, pathway, or region
- Selecting a data source without checking what resolution, species, and experimental conditions it provides — not all neuroimaging datasets support the same analytical questions
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to describe the main known projections of their chosen system — tests whether they have the background neuroanatomical knowledge to interpret their analysis.
- Ask what a disruption to this system's organisation produces clinically — connects anatomical analysis to neuroscientific significance.
- Ask whether the data source they have chosen provides data at the appropriate resolution and in the appropriate species for their question.
Conduct anatomical and connectivity analysis
2–4 weeks
Execute the neuroanatomical or functional connectivity analysis using your selected dataset and produce quantitative results. The analysis must go beyond a qualitative description of the atlas — it must extract a specific quantitative measure (projection density, functional connectivity coefficient, tractography pathway volume, or regional co-activation) that addresses the analytical question.
Proof required
Submit your analysis pipeline documentation (tools, software, and parameters used), at least two figures (an anatomical reference map and a result figure showing the quantitative measure you extracted), and a statistical or quantitative summary reporting the specific metric with its value and how it was derived.
What gets checked
- Analysis is quantitative — not a description of where the region is but a specific extracted measure with a numerical value and units
- Tool and software are named with version number — neuroimaging results are tool-dependent; reproducibility requires knowing exactly what was used
- Figures are interpretable without the report — each figure has a meaningful title, labelled axes, and a legend that makes its content self-explanatory
Common mistakes
- Producing only atlas screenshots as the analysis output — screenshots confirm that the system exists in the atlas; quantitative analysis extracts a specific measure that addresses the question
- Using neuroimaging tools without understanding the parameters — FSL, FreeSurfer, and SPM all have parameters with significant effects on results; not understanding what the parameters do means the results cannot be interpreted
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to explain what specific parameter choices most affected their result — tests whether they understand what the analysis is actually computing.
- Ask how the connectivity metric they extracted compares to published values for the same system — benchmarking against the literature is a standard quality check.
- Ask what would happen to the result if a different atlas parcellation was used — introduces the concept of atlas choice as a methodological variable.
Write systems analysis report and present with Q&A
1–2 weeks to write and schedule review
Complete a neuroanatomy systems analysis report communicating the circuit's organisation, the analysis approach, the quantitative findings, and their interpretation in terms of neural function. Present to a neuroscientist with expertise in systems or cognitive neuroscience for a Q&A that challenges both the analytical methods and the functional interpretation of the anatomical findings.
Proof required
Submit your complete systems analysis report (2500–4000 words: introduction with neural system context and research question, methods including tools, software version, and parameters, results with figures and quantitative measures, discussion interpreting the anatomical findings in terms of neural function, and conclusion) plus a Q&A record showing specific challenges to the analysis or interpretation and your responses. The reviewer must be named and their systems or cognitive neuroscience background stated.
What gets checked
- Discussion connects the anatomical findings to functional significance — anatomical connectivity analysis that does not interpret what the connectivity pattern means for neural computation is incomplete
- Limitations section addresses the specific limitations of the dataset or analysis method used — not generic neuroimaging limitations but the specific constraints that apply to this analysis
- Q&A record shows at least two challenges to the interpretation or methodology and substantive responses
Common mistakes
- A discussion section that only describes what was found without interpreting function — a circuit analysis report must connect structure to function; descriptive anatomy alone is not sufficient
- A reviewer without systems neuroscience background — general biological science knowledge is not sufficient to challenge the functional interpretation of neural connectivity findings
Resources
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to predict what would happen to a specific behaviour or cognitive function if the circuit they analysed was disrupted — tests the depth of the structure-function interpretation.
- Ask what evidence would be needed to establish a causal role for the connectivity they measured — distinguishes correlational connectivity analysis from causal circuit manipulation.
- Verify the reviewer has systems neuroscience expertise — anatomical expertise alone is insufficient if the question is about functional connectivity and neural computation.
Part of