MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410298844 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_02345

Personalized Neural State Segmentation: Validating the Greedy State Boundary Search Algorithm for Individual-level Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data

2025· article· en· W4410298844 on OpenAlexafffund
Robyn Wilford, Huiqin Chen, Erika Wharton-Shukster, Amy S. Finn, Katherine Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingSegmentationArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer sciencePsychologyBoundary (topology)Normative model of decision-makingMachine learningNormativeMathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans segment experience into a nested series of discrete events, separated by neural state transitions that can be identified in fMRI data collected during passive movie viewing. Current neural state segmentation techniques manage the noisiness of fMRI data by modeling groups of participants at once. However, the perception of event boundaries is itself idiosyncratic. As such, we developed a denoising pipeline to separate meaningful signal from noise and validated the Greedy State Boundary Search algorithm for use in individual participants. We applied the Greedy State Boundary Search to publicly available (1) young adult and (2) developmental fMRI data sets. After extensive denoising, we confirmed that personalized young adult neural state transitions exhibited a canonical temporal cortical hierarchy and were related to normative behavioral boundaries across time in key regions such as posterior parietal cortex. Furthermore, we used machine learning to show that the strongest neural transitions from across cortex could be used to predict the timing of normative boundary judgments. Results from the developmental data set also demonstrated important boundary conditions for estimating personalized neural state transitions. Nonetheless, some brain-behavior relations were still apparent in individually modeled developmental data. Finally, we ran two individual differences analyses demonstrating the utility of our method. These validations pave the way for applying personalized fMRI modeling to the study of event segmentation; what meaningful insights could we be missing when we average away what makes each of us unique?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207