ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2026
EEG-based classification models reveal differential neural processing of words and images.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning methods employing neuroimaging data are useful for monitoring the activation of neural representations. Specifically, they can be used to discern the brain networks engaged in processing specific categories of items. This approach has been employed on neuroimaging data, including functional magnetic resonance imaging data and electroencephalography (EEG) data. NEW
methodHere, we present a task and an analytical pipeline for investigating category representations using EEG. Participants (N = 30) viewed a series of images and words of objects belonging to five categories (Animals, Tools, Food, Scenes, and Vehicles) and responded when items from the same category were presented consecutively.
resultsWe trained support vector machines on EEG data within participants and found that both image trials and word trials yielded significant category classification accuracy, with image trials achieving higher accuracy than word trials. When comparing categories in a pair-wise fashion, all pairs were statistically distinguishable for image trials, whereas only one pair was distinguishable for word trials. Parietal and left temporal electrodes contributed more to image classification than frontal and right temporal electrodes. Category-specific activity patterns also generalized across participants for image trials. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsOur data and analytic pipeline yielded high classification accuracies, primarily for image trials, providing support for the utility of EEG data for neural decoding.
conclusionsThese methods can be instrumental for exploring the activation and reactivation of neural representations at the category level during wakefulness and, potentially, during offline states.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42595227What 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.