ArticleAperture neuro2023
Improving the Interpretability of fMRI Decoding using Deep Neural Networks and Adversarial Robustness.
Article in Aperture neuro, 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.
- Review
- Applications of interpretable deep learning in neuroimaging: A comprehensive review.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- BrainGNN: Interpretable Brain Graph Neural Network for fMRI Analysis.Medical image analysis · 2021Article
- Deep learning interpretability in neuroimaging: A comprehensive survey and methodological recommendations.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While deep neural networks (DNNs) are being increasingly used to make predictions from high-dimensional, complex data, they are widely seen as uninterpretable "black boxes", as it can be difficult to discover what input information is used to make predictions. This ability is particularly important for applications in cognitive neuroscience and neuroinformatics. A saliency map is a common approach for producing interpretable visualizations of the relative importance of input features in prediction. However, many methods for creating these maps fail due to focusing too much on the input or being extremely sensitive to small input noise. It is also challenging to evaluate how well saliency maps correspond to the truly relevant input information, given that ground truth is not always available. In this paper, we briefly review a variety of methods for producing gradient-based saliency maps, and present a new adversarial training method we developed to make DNNs robust to input noise with the goal of improving interpretability. We introduce two quantitative evaluation procedures for saliency map methods in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), applicable whenever a model is being trained to decode some information from imaging data. We describe the rationale for the procedures using a synthetic dataset where the complex activation structure is known. We then use them to evaluate saliency maps produced for linear and DNN models performing task decoding in the Human Connectome Project (HCP) dataset. Our key finding is that saliency maps produced with different methods vary widely in interpretability, as measured by our evaluation procedures in synthetic and HCP data. Strikingly, even when linear and DNN models decode at comparable levels of performance, gradient-based saliency maps from the DNN score higher on interpretability than maps derived from the linear model (via weights or gradient). Finally, saliency maps produced with our adversarial training method outperform those produced with alternative methods.
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.