ArticleHuman brain mapping2023
Group-level brain decoding with deep learning.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving source estimation of retinotopic MEG responses by combining data from multiple subjects.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Group-level brain decoding with deep learning.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- MEG-GPT: A transformer-based foundation model for magnetoencephalography data.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
- Modelling variability in functional brain networks using embeddings.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
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
Abstract
Decoding brain imaging data are gaining popularity, with applications in brain-computer interfaces and the study of neural representations. Decoding is typically subject-specific and does not generalise well over subjects, due to high amounts of between subject variability. Techniques that overcome this will not only provide richer neuroscientific insights but also make it possible for group-level models to outperform subject-specific models. Here, we propose a method that uses subject embedding, analogous to word embedding in natural language processing, to learn and exploit the structure in between-subject variability as part of a decoding model, our adaptation of the WaveNet architecture for classification. We apply this to magnetoencephalography data, where 15 subjects viewed 118 different images, with 30 examples per image; to classify images using the entire 1 s window following image presentation. We show that the combination of deep learning and subject embedding is crucial to closing the performance gap between subject- and group-level decoding models. Importantly, group models outperform subject models on low-accuracy subjects (although slightly impair high-accuracy subjects) and can be helpful for initialising subject models. While we have not generally found group-level models to perform better than subject-level models, the performance of group modelling is expected to be even higher with bigger datasets. In order to provide physiological interpretation at the group level, we make use of permutation feature importance. This provides insights into the spatiotemporal and spectral information encoded in the models. All code is available on GitHub (https://github.com/ricsinaruto/MEG-group-decode).
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.