MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975206251 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2010.5627291

Spatiotemporal ICA applied to retinotopic fMRI data

2010· article· en· W1975206251 on OpenAlexaff
Ingo R. Keck, Volker Fischer, Ana Maria Tomé, Elmar W. Lang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsNickel Institute
FundersSwedish Orphan Biovitrum
KeywordsIndependent component analysisFunctional magnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Component (thermodynamics)Machine learningNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use two spatiotemporal Independent Component Analysis algorithms, stJADE and stSOBI, to analyse data from a retinotopic functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment and compare their performance to the analysis of the same data with the spatial ICA done with JADE. This kind of experimental setting has the advantage that the activation in the brain can be estimated fairly easily and therefore can be used as well defined benchmark. We show that stSOBI can outperform sJADE and exhibits quite stable behaviour while stJADE critically depends on the quality of the chosen parameter settings for each subject.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207