ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
What multiplexing means for the interpretation of functional MRI data.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Simultaneous encoding of sensory features: the role of multiplexing and noise in tactile perception and neural representation.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite technology advances that have enabled routine acquisition of functional MRI data with sub-millimeter resolution, the inferences that cognitive neuroscientists must make to link fMRI data to behavior are complicated. Thus, a single dataset subjected to different analyses can be interpreted in different ways. This article presents two optical analogies that can be useful for framing fMRI analyses in a way that allows for multiple interpretations of fMRI data to be valid simultaneously without undermining each other. The first is reflection: when an object is reflected in a mirrored surface, it appears as if the reflected object is sharing space with the mirrored object, but of course it is not. This analogy can be a good guide for interpreting the fMRI signal, since even at sub-millimeter resolutions the signal is determined by a mixture of local and long-range neural computations. The second is refraction. If we view an object through a multi-faceted prism or gemstone, our view will change-sometimes dramatically-depending on our viewing angle. In the same way, interpretation of fMRI data (inference of underlying neuronal activity) can and should be different depending on the analysis approach. Rather than representing a weakness of the methodology, or the superiority of one approach over the other (for example, simple regression analysis versus multi-voxel pattern analysis), this is an expected consequence of how information is multiplexed in the neural networks of the brain: multiple streams of information are simultaneously present in each location. The fact that any one analysis typically shows only one view of the data also puts some parentheses around fMRI practitioners' constant search for ground truth against which to compare their data. By holding our interpretations lightly and understanding that many interpretations of the data can all be true at the same time, we do a better job of preparing ourselves to appreciate, and eventually understand, the complexity of the brain and the behavior it produces.
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.