Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34715319›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

An empirical evaluation of functional alignment using inter-subject decoding.

Thomas Bazeille, Elizabeth DuPre, Hugo Richard, Jean-Baptiste Poline, Bertrand Thirion

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Rapid cortical mapping with cross-participant encoding models.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Neural Representations of Concreteness and Concrete Concepts Are Specific to the Individual.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomas BazeilleUniversité Paris-Saclay, Inria, CEA, Palaiseau 91120, France.
Elizabeth DuPreMontréal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Hugo RichardUniversité Paris-Saclay, Inria, CEA, Palaiseau 91120, France.
Jean-Baptiste PolineMontréal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Bertrand ThirionUniversité Paris-Saclay, Inria, CEA, Palaiseau 91120, France. Electronic address: bertrand.thirion@inria.fr.

Funding

Resource DiscoveryP41EB019936 · NIBIB · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI David Nelson Kennedy · 2016 to 2026
$15.2M
Large-scale meta-analysis of functional MRI dataR01MH096906 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI Alejandro De La Vega · 2012 to 2026
$7.9M
Exposing the Deep Content of the Publication: Knowledge Extraction for Neuroimaging in Child PsychiatryR01MH083320 · NIMH · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI FRAZIER, JEAN A, KENNEDY, DAVID NELSON · 2009 to 2020
$6.3M
The Neuroimaging Data Model: FAIR descriptors of Brain Initiative Imaging ExperimentsRF1MH120021 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI KEATOR, DAVID BRYANT · 2019 to 2019
$944k
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB019936NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH083320NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH096906NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH120021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inter-individual variability in the functional organization of the brain presents a major obstacle to identifying generalizable neural coding principles. Functional alignment-a class of methods that matches subjects' neural signals based on their functional similarity-is a promising strategy for addressing this variability. To date, however, a range of functional alignment methods have been proposed and their relative performance is still unclear. In this work, we benchmark five functional alignment methods for inter-subject decoding on four publicly available datasets. Specifically, we consider three existing methods: piecewise Procrustes, searchlight Procrustes, and piecewise Optimal Transport. We also introduce and benchmark two new extensions of functional alignment methods: piecewise Shared Response Modelling (SRM), and intra-subject alignment. We find that functional alignment generally improves inter-subject decoding accuracy though the best performing method depends on the research context. Specifically, SRM and Optimal Transport perform well at both the region-of-interest level of analysis as well as at the whole-brain scale when aggregated through a piecewise scheme. We also benchmark the computational efficiency of each of the surveyed methods, providing insight into their usability and scalability. Taking inter-subject decoding accuracy as a quantification of inter-subject similarity, our results support the use of functional alignment to improve inter-subject comparisons in the face of variable structure-function organization. We provide open implementations of all methods used.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainBrain MappingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingfMRIFunctional alignmentInter-subject variabilityPredictive modeling

Identifiers

PMID34715319
PMCPMC11653789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.