Deep Learning for Cognitive Task Presence Prediction from Dynamic Functional Connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) studies the time-varying coordination between brain regions measured with fMRI and is a potential biomarker for understanding cognitive dynamics and tracking the development of neurological disorders. However, a critical methodological challenge lies in the variability of dFC estimates across different dFC assessment methods, raising concerns about the reliability and interpretation of downstream findings. While deep learning (DL) models have demonstrated the ability to capture traditionally inaccessible data patterns in many disciplines, they encounter challenges when applied to neuroimaging data. For instance, the high dimensionality, noise, and temporal complexity inherent in dFC makes it challenging for DL models to extract meaningful and interpretable insights. In this study, we investigated how DL architectures can be developed and adapted to predict task presence over time from task-based dFC data, and additionally, how the choice of dFC assessment method influences the predictive performance of DL models. We developed and compared a convolutional neural network (CNN), a node-level classification graph convolutional network (GCN), and a graph-level classification GCN based on their ability to predict time points at which subjects were performing a cognitive task or at rest. In our study, the results indicate that both DL model architecture and dFC estimation methodology significantly impact task presence prediction capacity, while the specific task paradigm had minimal influence out of the limited types that were explored. This work offers a powerful benchmark for understanding the dynamics of underlying task-driven cognitive state transitions and the analytical flexibility limitations of dFC estimation methods and DL architectures.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".