ArticleeNeuro
Inverted Encoding Models Reconstruct an Arbitrary Model Response, Not the Stimulus.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging Psychophysics to Infer the Mechanisms of Encoding Change in Vision.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Multi-voxel pattern analysis for developmental cognitive neuroscientists.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2025Review
- Searchlight-based trial-wise fMRI decoding in the presence of trial-by-trial correlations.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Feedback scales the spatial tuning of cortical responses during both visual working memory and long-term memory.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Decoding time-resolved neural representations of orientation ensemble perception.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Eye movements disrupt EEG alpha-band coding of behaviorally relevant and irrelevant spatial locations held in working memory.Journal of neurophysiology · 2023Article
- Improving the validity of neuroimaging decoding tests of invariant and configural neural representation.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Encoding of continuous perceptual choices in human early visual cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- A modeling framework for determining modulation of neural-level tuning from non-invasive human fMRI data.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Working memory representations in visual cortex mediate distraction effects.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Leveraging shared connectivity to aggregate heterogeneous datasets into a common response space.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- Behavior-dependent directional tuning in the human visual-navigation network.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Ensemble representations reveal distinct neural coding of visual working memory.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Competing rhythmic neural representations of orientations during concurrent attention to multiple orientation features.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Learning What Is Irrelevant or Relevant: Expectations Facilitate Distractor Inhibition and Target Facilitation through Distinct Neural Mechanisms.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Article
- Dual Process Coding of Recalled Locations in Human Oscillatory Brain Activity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Article
- The Importance of Considering Model Choices When Interpreting Results in Computational Neuroimaging.eNeuroArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probing how large populations of neurons represent stimuli is key to understanding sensory representations as many stimulus characteristics can only be discerned from population activity and not from individual single-units. Recently, inverted encoding models have been used to produce channel response functions from large spatial-scale measurements of human brain activity that are reminiscent of single-unit tuning functions and have been proposed to assay "population-level stimulus representations" (Sprague et al., 2018a). However, these channel response functions do not assay population tuning. We show by derivation that the channel response function is only determined up to an invertible linear transform. Thus, these channel response functions are arbitrary, one of an infinite family and therefore not a unique description of population representation. Indeed, simulations demonstrate that bimodal, even random, channel basis functions can account perfectly well for population responses without any underlying neural response units that are so tuned. However, the approach can be salvaged by extending it to reconstruct the stimulus, not the assumed model. We show that when this is done, even using bimodal and random channel basis functions, a unimodal function peaking at the appropriate value of the stimulus is recovered which can be interpreted as a measure of population selectivity. More precisely, the recovered function signifies how likely any value of the stimulus is, given the observed population response. Whether an analysis is recovering the hypothetical responses of an arbitrary model rather than assessing the selectivity of population representations is not an issue unique to the inverted encoding model and human neuroscience, but a general problem that must be confronted as more complex analyses intervene between measurement of population activity and presentation of data.
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.