ArticleIbrain2024
The application of eXplainable artificial intelligence in studying cognition: A scoping review.
Article in Ibrain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CubicPat: Investigations on the Mental Performance and Stress Detection Using EEG Signals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The application of eXplainable artificial intelligence in studying cognition: A scoping review.Ibrain · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked renewed discussions on its trustworthiness and the concept of eXplainable AI (XAI). Recent research in neuroscience has emphasized the relevance of XAI in studying cognition. This scoping review aims to identify and analyze various XAI methods used to study the mechanisms and features of cognitive function and dysfunction. In this study, the collected evidence is qualitatively assessed to develop an effective framework for approaching XAI in cognitive neuroscience. Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping review guidelines, we searched for peer-reviewed articles on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers performed data screening, extraction, and thematic analysis in parallel. Twelve eligible experimental studies published in the past decade were included. The results showed that the majority (75%) focused on normal cognitive functions such as perception, social cognition, language, executive function, and memory, while others (25%) examined impaired cognition. The predominant XAI methods employed were intrinsic XAI (58.3%), followed by attribution-based (41.7%) and example-based (8.3%) post hoc methods. Explainability was applied at a local (66.7%) or global (33.3%) scope. The findings, predominantly correlational, were anatomical (83.3%) or nonanatomical (16.7%). In conclusion, while these XAI techniques were lauded for their predictive power, robustness, testability, and plausibility, limitations included oversimplification, confounding factors, and inconsistencies. The reviewed studies showcased the potential of XAI models while acknowledging current challenges in causality and oversimplification, particularly emphasizing the need for reproducibility.
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.