ArticleHuman brain mapping2017
Inter-subject alignment of MEG datasets in a common representational space.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A technical review of canonical correlation analysis for neuroscience applications.Human brain mapping · 2020Pooled it
- Neural alignment during outgroup intervention predicts future change of affect towards outgroup.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- The integration of social and neural synchrony: a case for ecologically valid research using MEG neuroimaging.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2021Review
- The Common Time Course of Memory Processes Revealed.Psychological science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pooling neural imaging data across subjects requires aligning recordings from different subjects. In magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings, sensors across subjects are poorly correlated both because of differences in the exact location of the sensors, and structural and functional differences in the brains. It is possible to achieve alignment by assuming that the same regions of different brains correspond across subjects. However, this relies on both the assumption that brain anatomy and function are well correlated, and the strong assumptions that go into solving the under-determined inverse problem given the high-dimensional source space. In this article, we investigated an alternative method that bypasses source-localization. Instead, it analyzes the sensor recordings themselves and aligns their temporal signatures across subjects. We used a multivariate approach, multiset canonical correlation analysis (M-CCA), to transform individual subject data to a low-dimensional common representational space. We evaluated the robustness of this approach over a synthetic dataset, by examining the effect of different factors that add to the noise and individual differences in the data. On an MEG dataset, we demonstrated that M-CCA performs better than a method that assumes perfect sensor correspondence and a method that applies source localization. Last, we described how the standard M-CCA algorithm could be further improved with a regularization term that incorporates spatial sensor information. Hum Brain Mapp 38:4287-4301, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.