The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of multivariate classifiers and response normalizations for pattern-information fMRI
Open accessAbstract
A popular method for investigating whether stimulus information is present in fMRI response patterns is to attempt to “decode” the stimuli from the response patterns with a multivariate classifier. The sensitivity for detecting the information depends on the particular classifier used. However, little is known about the relative performance of different classifiers on fMRI data. Here we compared six multivariate classifiers and investigated how the response-amplitude estimate used (beta or t-value) and different pattern normalizations affect classification performance. The compared classifiers were a pattern-correlation classifier, a k-nearest-neighbors classifier, Fisher’s linear discriminant, Gaussian naïve Bayes, and linear and nonlinear (radial-basis-function-kernel) support vector machines. We compared these classifiers’ accuracy at decoding the category of visual objects from response patterns in human early visual and inferior temporal cortex acquired in an event-related design with BOLD fMRI at 3T using SENSE and isotropic voxels of about 2-mm width. Overall, Fisher’s linear discriminant (with an optimal-shrinkage covariance estimator) and the linear support vector machine performed best. The pattern-correlation classifier often performed similarly as those two classifiers. The nonlinear classifiers never performed better and sometimes significantly worse than the linear classifiers, suggesting overfitting. Defining response patterns by t-values (or in error-standard-deviation units) rather than by beta estimates (in % signal change) to define the patterns appeared advantageous. Cross-validation by a leave-one-stimulus-pair-out method gave higher accuracies than a leave-one-run-out method, suggesting that generalization to independent runs (which more safely ensures independence of the test set) is more challenging than generalization to novel stimuli within the same category. Independent selection of fewer more visually responsive voxels tended to yield better decoding performance for all classifiers. Normalizing mean and standard deviation of the response patterns either across stimuli or across voxels had no significant effect on decoding performance. Overall our results suggest that linear decoders based on t-value patterns may perform best in the present scenario of visual object representations measured for about 60-minutes per subject with 3T fMRI.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199 · Cited by 40,918
The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory
Vapnik, V. N. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 · Cited by 39,138
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Friedman, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 · Cited by 24,162
Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Nasrabadi, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Electronic Imaging · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · Cited by 22,066
(2012) · Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_5195 · Cited by 19,370
An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods
Cristianini, N., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511801389 · Cited by 13,855
Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond
Schölkopf, B., & Smola, A. J. (2001) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4175.001.0001 · Cited by 11,703
Russell, E. L., Chiang, L. H., & Braatz, R. D. (2000) · Advances in Industrial Control · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0409-4_3 · Cited by 7,862
An introduction to variable and feature selection
GuyonIsabelle, & ElisseeffAndré (2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944968 · Cited by 7,715
An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection.
Guyon, I., & Elisseeff, A. (2003) · Cited by 6,576
Cited by
A Toolbox for Representational Similarity Analysis
Nili, H., Wingfield, C., Walther, A., Su, L., Marslen-Wilson, W., & Kriegeskorte, N. (2014) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003553 · Cited by 937
Self-citationLess Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex
Kok, P., Jehee, J. F. M., & de Lange, F. P. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034 · Cited by 798
A Review of Feature Reduction Techniques in Neuroimaging
Mwangi, B., Tian, T. S., & Soares, J. C. (2014) · Neuroinformatics · doi:10.1007/s12021-013-9204-3 · Cited by 559
Reliability of dissimilarity measures for multi-voxel pattern analysis
Walther, A., Nili, H., Ejaz, N., Alink, A., Kriegeskorte, N., & Diedrichsen, J. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.012 · Cited by 560
Self-citationDecoding Patterns of Human Brain Activity
Tong, F., & Pratte, M. S. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100412 · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Misaki, M., Kim, Y., Bandettini, P. A., & Kriegeskorte, N.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-118
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994900366
- Cited by
- 458
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 15.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of multivariate classifiers and response normalizations for pattern-information fMRI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.051
- The paper
- Misaki, M., Kim, Y., Bandettini, P. A., & Kriegeskorte, N. (2010). Comparison of multivariate classifiers and response normalizations for pattern-information fMRI. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.051
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.