Stability of representational geometry across a wide range of fMRI activity levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fine-grained activity patterns, as measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), are thought to reflect underlying neural representations. Multivariate analysis techniques, such as representational similarity analysis (RSA), can be used to test models of brain representation by quantifying the representational geometry (the collection of pair-wise dissimilarities between activity patterns). One important caveat, however, is that non-linearities in the coupling between neural activity and the fMRI signal may lead to significant distortions in the representational geometry estimated from fMRI activity patterns. Here we tested the stability of representational dissimilarity measures in primary sensory-motor (S1 and M1) and early visual regions (V1/V2) across a large range of activation levels. Subjects were visually cued with different letters to perform single finger presses with one of the 5 fingers at a rate of 0.3-2.6 Hz. For each stimulation frequency, we quantified the difference between the 5 activity patterns in M1, S1, and V1/V2. We found that the representational geometry remained stable, even though the average activity increased over a large dynamic range. These results indicate that the representational geometry of fMRI activity patterns can be reliably assessed, largely independent of the average activity in the region. This has important methodological implications for RSA and other multivariate analysis approaches that use the representational geometry to make inferences about brain representations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".