MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mapping between fMRI responses to movies and their natural language annotations

2017· article· en· W2598802110 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kiran Vodrahalli, Po-Hsuan Chen, Yingyu Liang, Christopher Baldassano, Janice Chen, Esther Yong, Christopher J. Honey, Uri Hasson, Peter J. Ramadge, Kenneth A. Norman, Sanjeev Arora

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthIntel Corporation
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceEmbeddingSentenceRank (graph theory)Natural languageRanking (information retrieval)AnnotationPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several research groups have shown how to map fMRI responses to the meanings of presented stimuli. This paper presents new methods for doing so when only a natural language annotation is available as the description of the stimulus. We study fMRI data gathered from subjects watching an episode of BBCs Sherlock (Chen et al., 2017), and learn bidirectional mappings between fMRI responses and natural language representations. By leveraging data from multiple subjects watching the same movie, we were able to perform scene classification with 72% accuracy (random guessing would give 4%) and scene ranking with average rank in the top 4% (random guessing would give 50%). The key ingredients underlying this high level of performance are (a) the use of the Shared Response Model (SRM) and its variant SRM-ICA (Chen et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016) to aggregate fMRI data from multiple subjects, both of which are shown to be superior to standard PCA in producing low-dimensional representations for the tasks in this paper; (b) a sentence embedding technique adapted from the natural language processing (NLP) literature (Arora et al., 2017) that produces semantic vector representation of the annotations; (c) using previous timestep information in the featurization of the predictor data. These optimizations in how we featurize the fMRI data and text annotations provide a substantial improvement in classification performance, relative to standard approaches.

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)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations89
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207