ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Methods for computing the maximum performance of computational models of fMRI responses.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Contrasts to Representations: Rethinking fMRI Approaches for Cortico-Cerebellar Networks.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Review
- Visual experience shapes functional connectivity between occipital and non-visual networks.eLife · 2026Article
- Infants have rich visual categories in ventrotemporal cortex at 2 months of age.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Disentangling signal and noise in neural responses through generative modeling.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Asymmetric representation of symmetric semantic information in the human brain.Neuroimage. Reports · 2025Article
- How trait impressions of faces shape subsequent mental state inferences.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- An fMRI dataset in response to large-scale short natural dynamic facial expression videos.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Neural representations of beat and rhythm in motor and association regions.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Disentangling signal and noise in neural responses through generative modeling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Modeling short visual events through the BOLD moments video fMRI dataset and metadata.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Implicit racial biases are lower in more populous more diverse and less segregated US cities.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Driving and suppressing the human language network using large language models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Neural encoding with unsupervised spiking convolutional neural network.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Testing, explaining, and exploring models of facial expressions of emotions.Science advances · 2023Article
- Predicting brain activation maps for arbitrary tasks with cognitive encoding models.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Accurate predictions of individual differences in task-evoked brain activity from resting-state fMRI using a sparse ensemble learner.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Neural similarity between mentalizing and live social interaction during the transition to adolescence.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational neuroimaging methods aim to predict brain responses (measured e.g. with functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI]) on the basis of stimulus features obtained through computational models. The accuracy of such prediction is used as an indicator of how well the model describes the computations underlying the brain function that is being considered. However, the prediction accuracy is bounded by the proportion of the variance of the brain response which is related to the measurement noise and not to the stimuli (or cognitive functions). This bound to the performance of a computational model has been referred to as the noise ceiling. In previous fMRI applications two methods have been proposed to estimate the noise ceiling based on either a split-half procedure or Monte Carlo simulations. These methods make different assumptions over the nature of the effects underlying the data, and, importantly, their relation has not been clarified yet. Here, we derive an analytical form for the noise ceiling that does not require computationally expensive simulations or a splitting procedure that reduce the amount of data. The validity of this analytical definition is proved in simulations, we show that the analytical solution results in the same estimate of the noise ceiling as the Monte Carlo method. Considering different simulated noise structure, we evaluate different estimators of the variance of the responses and their impact on the estimation of the noise ceiling. We furthermore evaluate the interplay between regularization (often used to estimate model fits to the data when the number of computational features in the model is large) and model complexity on the performance with respect to the noise ceiling. Our results indicate that when considering the variance of the responses across runs, computing the noise ceiling analytically results in similar estimates as the split half estimator and approaches the true noise ceiling under a variety of simulated noise scenarios. Finally, the methods are tested on real fMRI data acquired at 7 Tesla.
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.