Cited by 36Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Model-based feature construction for multivariate decoding

Open access
Brodersen, Kay H., Haiss, Florent, Ong, Cheng Soon, Jung, Fabienne, Tittgemeyer, Marc, Buhmann, Joachim M., Weber, Bruno, Stephan, Klaas E.·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Conventional decoding methods in neuroscience aim to predict discrete brain states from multivariate correlates of neural activity. This approach faces two important challenges. First, a small number of examples are typically represented by a much larger number of features, making it hard to select the few informative features that allow for accurate predictions. Second, accuracy estimates and information maps often remain descriptive and can be hard to interpret. In this paper, we propose a model-based decoding approach that addresses both challenges from a new angle. Our method involves (i) inverting a dynamic causal model of neurophysiological data in a trial-by-trial fashion; (ii) training and testing a discriminative classifier on a strongly reduced feature space derived from trial-wise estimates of the model parameters; and (iii) reconstructing the separating hyperplane. Since the approach is model-based, it provides a principled dimensionality reduction of the feature space; in addition, if the model is neurobiologically plausible, decoding results may offer a mechanistically meaningful interpretation. The proposed method can be used in conjunction with a variety of modelling approaches and brain data, and supports decoding of either trial or subject labels. Moreover, it can supplement evidence-based approaches for model-based decoding and enable structural model selection in cases where Bayesian model selection cannot be applied. Here, we illustrate its application using dynamic causal modelling (DCM) of electrophysiological recordings in rodents. We demonstrate that the approach achieves significant above-chance performance and, at the same time, allows for a neurobiological interpretation of the results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.036

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The poor signal-to-noise ratio of single-trial recordings poses a serious challenge for modeling.

    “The poor signal-to-noise ratio of single-trial recordings poses a serious challenge for modeling (Brodersen et al., 2011)”

    From Allostatic Self-efficacy: A Metacognitive Theory of Dyshomeostasis-Induced Fatigue and Depression (2016) · cites this paper as Brodersen et al., 2011

    The Methods section (‘Trial-by-trial dynamic causal modelling’; page unavailable) describes fitting a model to individual trials, but does not say that poor signal-to-noise ratio makes this difficult. Searches for ‘signal-to-noise,’ ‘noise,’ and challenges in single-trial model estimation found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Brodersen KH Ong CS Stephan KE Buhmann JM Posterior distributions of classification accuracy n.d. under review

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brodersen, K. H., Haiss, F., Ong, C. S., Jung, F., Tittgemeyer, M., Buhmann, J. M., Weber, B., & Stephan, K. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research (DE)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Brodersen, Kay H.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
601-615
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142535091
Cited by
36
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • Universität Zürich
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
dynamic causal modeling, multivariate decoding, feature construction, dimensionality reduction, separating hyperplane, electrophysiology, information maps
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Computer Simulation, Models, Neurological, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review