The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-45174-9_1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-Task Learning for Interpretation of Brain Decoding Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In qualitative evaluation, to show the superiority of one decoding method over the other (or a univariate map), the corresponding brain maps are compared visually in terms of smoothness, sparseness, and coherency using already known facts (see for example, Varoquaux et al, 2012). In the second approach, important factors in interpretability such as spatio-temporal reproducibility are evaluated to indirectly assess the interpretability of results (see for example, Langs et al, 2011; Rasmussen et al, 2012; Conroy et al, 2013; Kia et al, 2016). Despite partial effectiveness, there is no general consensus regarding the quantification of these intermediate criteria.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In qualitative evaluation, to show the superiority of one decoding method over the other (or a univariate map), the corresponding brain maps are compared visually in terms of smoothness, sparseness, and coherency using already known facts (see for example, Varoquaux et al, 2012). In the second approach, important factors in interpretability such as spatio-temporal reproducibility are evaluated to indirectly assess the interpretability of results (see for example, Langs et al, 2011; Rasmussen et al, 2012; Conroy et al, 2013; Kia et al, 2016). Despite partial effectiveness, there is no general consensus regarding the quantification of these intermediate criteria.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite partial effectiveness, there is no general consensus regarding the quantification of these intermediate criteria. For example, in the case of spatial reproducibility, different methods such as correlation (Rasmussen et al, 2012; Kia et al, 2016), dice score (Langs et al, 2011), or parameter variability (Conroy et al, 2013; Haufe et al, 2013) are used for quantifying the stability of brain maps, each of which considers different aspects of local or global reproducibility.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, prediction methods that do not give these plausible explanations are much more difficult to use for accumulating neuroscientific knowledge. Generative probabilistic models are generally more immediately interpretable [11,7], and for instance when using linear generative models, the weights point to those brain locations that are activated due to a performed task.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%