An empirical evaluation of functional alignment using inter-subject decoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inter-individual variability in the functional organization of the brain presents a major obstacle to identifying generalizable neural coding principles. Functional alignment-a class of methods that matches subjects' neural signals based on their functional similarity-is a promising strategy for addressing this variability. To date, however, a range of functional alignment methods have been proposed and their relative performance is still unclear. In this work, we benchmark five functional alignment methods for inter-subject decoding on four publicly available datasets. Specifically, we consider three existing methods: piecewise Procrustes, searchlight Procrustes, and piecewise Optimal Transport. We also introduce and benchmark two new extensions of functional alignment methods: piecewise Shared Response Modelling (SRM), and intra-subject alignment. We find that functional alignment generally improves inter-subject decoding accuracy though the best performing method depends on the research context. Specifically, SRM and Optimal Transport perform well at both the region-of-interest level of analysis as well as at the whole-brain scale when aggregated through a piecewise scheme. We also benchmark the computational efficiency of each of the surveyed methods, providing insight into their usability and scalability. Taking inter-subject decoding accuracy as a quantification of inter-subject similarity, our results support the use of functional alignment to improve inter-subject comparisons in the face of variable structure-function organization. We provide open implementations of all methods used.
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 | 0.020 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".