MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313990759 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e3283451f8f

Decoding what one likes or dislikes from single-trial fNIRS measurements

2011· article· en· W2313990759 on OpenAlexaff
S. M. Hadi Hosseini, Yoko Mano, Maryam Rostami, Makoto Takahashi, Motoaki Sugiura, Ryuta Kawashima

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional near-infrared spectroscopyNeuroimagingPsychologyNeuroscienceDecoding methodsCognitive psychologyFunctional neuroimagingFunctional imagingFunctional magnetic resonance imagingElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceCognitionPrefrontal cortexComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent functional neuroimaging studies have shown the possibility of decoding human mental states from their brain activity using noninvasive neuroimaging techniques. In this study, we applied multivariate pattern classification, in conjunction with a short interval of functional near-infrared spectroscopy measurements of the anterior frontal cortex, to decode whether a human likes or dislikes a presented visual object; an ability that is quite beneficial for a number of clinical and technological applications. A variety of objects comprising sceneries, cars, foods, and animals were used as the stimuli. The results showed the possibility of predicting subjective preference from a short interval of functional near-infrared spectroscopy measurements of the anterior frontal regions. In addition, the pattern localization results showed the neuroscientific validity of the constructed classifier.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.340
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.015 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207