Cited by 3,355Visual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and PerceptionNeural dynamics and brain function

Representational similarity analysis-connecting the branches of systems neuroscience

Open access
Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus·2008·Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience

Abstract

A FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE FOR SYSTEMS NEUROSCIENCE IS TO QUANTITATIVELY RELATE ITS THREE MAJOR BRANCHES OF RESEARCH: brain-activity measurement, behavioral measurement, and computational modeling. Using measured brain-activity patterns to evaluate computational network models is complicated by the need to define the correspondency between the units of the model and the channels of the brain-activity data, e.g., single-cell recordings or voxels from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Similar correspondency problems complicate relating activity patterns between different modalities of brain-activity measurement (e.g., fMRI and invasive or scalp electrophysiology), and between subjects and species. In order to bridge these divides, we suggest abstracting from the activity patterns themselves and computing representational dissimilarity matrices (RDMs), which characterize the information carried by a given representation in a brain or model. Building on a rich psychological and mathematical literature on similarity analysis, we propose a new experimental and data-analytical framework called representational similarity analysis (RSA), in which multi-channel measures of neural activity are quantitatively related to each other and to computational theory and behavior by comparing RDMs. We demonstrate RSA by relating representations of visual objects as measured with fMRI in early visual cortex and the fusiform face area to computational models spanning a wide range of complexities. The RDMs are simultaneously related via second-level application of multidimensional scaling and tested using randomization and bootstrap techniques. We discuss the broad potential of RSA, including novel approaches to experimental design, and argue that these ideas, which have deep roots in psychology and neuroscience, will allow the integrated quantitative analysis of data from all three branches, thus contributing to a more unified systems neuroscience.

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 · 10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008

Cites

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?

  • Various techniques exist to carry out comparisons of optimized receptive fields with measured receptive fields in fMRI studies, including population receptive field estimation and representational dissimilarity matrices.

    “Various techniques exist to carry out such comparisons in fRMI studies, including population receptive field estimation (Dumoulin and Wandell, 2008; Güçlü and van Gerven, 2015) and representational dissimilarity matrices (Kriegeskorte et al., 2008; Khaligh-Razavi and Kriegeskorte, 2014).”

    From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Kriegeskorte et al., 2008

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 98 · Cited by 3,355

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wade A.R. Tyler C.W. (2005). Human lateral occipital cortex contains a non-retinotopic map of visual space. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, Toronto, Canada.

Authors
Kriegeskorte, N.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus
Venue
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
Published
2008
Volume
2
Pages
4-4
ISSN
1662-5137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160654481
Cited by
3,355
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 214 · 2025: 367 · 2024: 376 · 2023: 355 · 2022: 298 · 2021: 350 · 2020: 283 · 2019: 274 · 2018: 212 · 2017: 167 · 2016: 155 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 42
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Universiteit Maastricht
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
representational similarity analysis, representational dissimilarity matrices, neural representations, computational models of the brain, functional MRI, early visual cortex, fusiform face area, object recognition, multidimensional scaling, cross-modal comparison, cross-species generalization, similarity analysis

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