ArticleScientific reports2025
Improved image reconstruction from brain activity through automatic image captioning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- An innovative multi-head attention mechanism-driven recurrent neural network model with feature representation fusion for enhanced image captioning to assist individuals with visual impairments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reading specific memories from human neurons before and after sleep.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant progress has been made in the field of image reconstruction using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Certain investigations reconstructed images with visual information decoded from brain signals, yielding insufficient accuracy and quality. The combination of semantic information in the reconstruction was recommended to improve performance. However, this issue continues to come across numerous difficulties. To address such problems, we proposed an approach that combines semantically complex details with visual details for reconstruction. Our proposed method consists of two main modules: visual reconstruction and semantic reconstruction. In the visual reconstruction module, visual information is decoded from brain data using a decoder. This module employs a deep generator network (DGN) to produce images and utilizes a VGG19 network to extract visual features from the generated images. Image optimization is performed iteratively to minimize the error between features decoded from brain data and features extracted from the generated image. In the semantic reconstruction module, two models BLIP and LDM are employed. Using the BLIP model, we generate 10 captions for each training image. The semantic features extracted from the image captions, along with brain data obtained from training sessions, are used to train a decoder. The trained decoder is then utilized to decode semantic features from human brain activity. Finally, the reconstructed image from the visual reconstruction module is used as input to the LDM model, while the semantic features decoded from brain activity are provided as conditional input for semantic reconstruction. Including decoded semantic features improves reconstruction quality, as confirmed by our ablation study. Our strategy is superior both qualitatively and quantitatively to Shen et al.'s method, which utilizes a similar dataset. Our methodology achieved an accuracy of 0.812 and 0.815 for the inception and contrastive language-image pre-training (CLIP) metrics, respectively, which are excellent for the quantitative evaluation of semantic content. We achieved an accuracy of 0.328 in the structural similarity index measure (SSIM), indicating superior performance as a low-level metric. Moreover, our proposed approach for semantic reconstruction of artificial shapes and imagined images achieved acceptable success, attaining accuracies of 0.566 and 0.627 based on the CLIP metric, and 0.671 and 0.565 based on the SSIM metric, respectively.
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.