Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40395838›Full record

ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2022

Same Cause; Different Effects in the Brain.

Mariya Toneva, Jennifer Williams, Anand Bollu, Christoph Dann, Leila Wehbe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Mariya TonevaPrinceton University, Max Planck Institute for Software Systems.
Jennifer WilliamsCarnegie Mellon University.
Anand BolluCarnegie Mellon University.
Christoph DannGoogle Research.
Leila WehbeCarnegie Mellon University.

Funding

Mapping the Human Connectome: Structure, Function, and HeritabilityU54MH091657 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI UGURBIL, KAMIL, VAN ESSEN, DAVID C · 2010 to 2014
$34.7M
NRSA Training Grant in Quantitative NeuroscienceT32MH065214 · NIMH · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI Nathaniel Douglass Daw, KENNETH A NORMAN · 2002 to 2026
$7.9M
CRCNS: Discovering Computational Principles of Language Processing in the BrainR01DC020088 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI PESTILLI, FRANCO, WEHBE, LEILA · 2021 to 2025
$1.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC020088NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH065214NIMH NIH HHS U54 MH091657
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To study information processing in the brain, neuroscientists manipulate experimental stimuli while recording participant brain activity. They can then use encoding models to find out which brain "zone" (e.g. which region of interest, volume pixel or electrophysiology sensor) is predicted from the stimulus properties. Given the assumptions underlying this setup, when stimulus properties are predictive of the activity in a zone, these properties are understood to cause activity in that zone. In recent years, researchers have used neural networks to construct representations that capture the diverse properties of complex stimuli, such as natural language or natural images. Encoding models built using these high-dimensional representations are often able to significantly predict the activity in large swathes of cortex, suggesting that the activity in all these brain zones is caused by stimulus properties captured in the representation. It is then natural to ask: "Is the activity in these different brain zones caused by the stimulus properties in the same way?" In neuroscientific terms, this corresponds to asking if these different zones process the stimulus properties in the same way. Here, we propose a new framework that enables researchers to ask if the properties of a stimulus affect two brain zones in the same way. We use simulated data and two real fMRI datasets with complex naturalistic stimuli to show that our framework enables us to make such inferences. Our inferences are strikingly consistent between the two datasets, indicating that the proposed framework is a promising new tool for neuroscientists to understand how information is processed in the brain.

Indexed as

encoding modelsfMRIinterpretabilityneurolinguisticsneuroscienceregression

Identifiers

PMID40395838
PMCPMC12090893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.