MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107191008 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008457

Searching through functional space reveals distributed visual, auditory, and semantic coding in the human brain

2020· article· en· W3107191008 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sreejan Kumar, Cameron T. Ellis, Thomas O’Connell, Marvin M. Chun, Nicholas B. Turk‐Browne

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchPrinceton UniversityNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceVoxelFunctional magnetic resonance imagingArtificial intelligenceNeural codingModularity (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)NeurosciencePsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extent to which brain functions are localized or distributed is a foundational question in neuroscience. In the human brain, common fMRI methods such as cluster correction, atlas parcellation, and anatomical searchlight are biased by design toward finding localized representations. Here we introduce the functional searchlight approach as an alternative to anatomical searchlight analysis, the most commonly used exploratory multivariate fMRI technique. Functional searchlight removes any anatomical bias by grouping voxels based only on functional similarity and ignoring anatomical proximity. We report evidence that visual and auditory features from deep neural networks and semantic features from a natural language processing model, as well as object representations, are more widely distributed across the brain than previously acknowledged and that functional searchlight can improve model-based similarity and decoding accuracy. This approach provides a new way to evaluate and constrain computational models with brain activity and pushes our understanding of human brain function further along the spectrum from strict modularity toward distributed representation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207