“…Other groups have used diffusion measures such as fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) computed from the voxels through which the parcellated fibers pass (Besseling et al, ; Ciccarelli et al, ; Duan, Zhao, He, & Shu, ; Kristo et al, ; Papinutto, Maule, & Jovicich, ; Pfefferbaum, Adalsteinsson, & Sullivan, ; Vollmar et al, ; Yendiki, Reuter, Paul, Diana Rosas, & Fischl, ). While multiple studies have assessed test–retest reproducibility of white matter parcellations using cortical‐parcellation‐based strategies, for example, on the brain connectome network (Besson, Lopes, Leclerc, Derambure, & Tyvaert, ; Bonilha et al, ; Buchanan, Pernet, Gorgolewski, Storkey, & Bastin, ; Dennis et al, ; Duda, Cook, & Gee, ; Schumacher et al, ; Smith et al, ; Vaessen et al, ; Zhao et al, ; Zhang, Descoteaux, et al, ) and on anatomical fiber tracts (Besseling et al, ; Cousineau et al, ; Heiervang, Behrens, Mackay, Robson, & Johansen‐Berg, ; Kristo et al, ; Lin et al, ; Papinutto et al, ; Tensaouti, Lahlou, Clarisse, Lotterie, & Berry, ; Wang et al, ; Yendiki et al, ), there are no existing studies of fiber clustering, to our knowledge. Studies have suggested that fiber clustering approaches have advantages in parcellating the white matter in a highly consistent way, aiming to reconstruct fiber parcels/tracts corresponding to the white matter anatomy (Ge et al, ; Sydnor et al, ; Zhang et al, ; Zhang, Wu, Norton, et al, ; Ziyan, Sabuncu, Eric, Grimson, & Westin, ), while cortical‐parcellation‐based methods could be less consistent considering factors such as the variability of intersubject cortical anatomy, the dependence on registration between dMRI and structural images, and the presence of false positive/negative connections (Amunts et al, ; Fischl, Sereno, Tootell, & Dale, ; Maier‐Hein et al, ; Sinke et al, ; Zhang, Descoteaux, et al, ).…”