Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41799677›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

Computational parametric mapping of functional neuroimaging data.

Simon R Steinkamp, Iyadh Chaker, Felix Hubert, David Meder, Oliver J Hulme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Simon R SteinkampDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Iyadh ChakerDepartment of Physics, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Felix HubertDepartment of Basic Neuroscience, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
David MederDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Oliver J HulmeDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3139-4324

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Elucidating the neural basis of cognition requires theoretical models of cognition to constrain the modeling of neural data. A prevalent strategy in functional neuroimaging is to regress the latent variables of cognitive models onto neural data. Though widely used, this approach restricts the mapping of computational variables to single parameter values. We introduce computational parametric mapping (CPM), which builds on and generalizes the Bayesian population receptive field framework. CPM offers three main advances for cognitive computational modeling. First, it allows the fitting of cognitive models directly to neuroimaging data. Second, it allows for voxelwise or regionwise mapping of parameters of cognitive computational models onto the brain, thus making the topographic mapping methods prevalent in the sensory sciences available to the cognitive computational neuroscientist. Finally, it is efficient enough to make voxelwise mapping over large regions of interest feasible. Here, we illustrate how CPM can be used to fit reinforcement-learning algorithms to synthetic and real data.

Indexed as

cognitive modelingcomputational modelingfunctional neuroimagingpopulation receptive fieldtopographic mappingvariational Bayes

Identifiers

PMID41799677
PMCPMC12961307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.