The methodological foundations of lesion network mapping remain sound.

Lesion network mapping (LNM) and related techniques have been used in over 200 studies, primarily to test whether anatomically distributed lesions that cause the same symptom fall within a common brain network. A recent article1 challenges the specificity and validity of this technique, suggesting that lesion network maps primarily reflect intrinsic properties of the normative connectome rather than lesion-symptom relationships. However, the data and procedures in van den Heuvel et al. do not reflect those used in most LNM studies. Further, the main conclusions were based on similarity between maps, but similarity does not imply the absence of meaningful differences. In contrast, LNM provides evidence for meaningful differences using specificity testing. Exemplary analyses of 1090 lesion locations from 34 prior LNM studies do not support van den Heuvel's concerns and confirm the lesion-deficit specificity of LNM. While we encourage further methodological investigation, the analyses of van den Heuvel et al. do not invalidate prior LNM findings or future applications.