Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

DTBIA: An Immersive Visual Analytics System for Brain-Inspired Research

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read An immersive VR analytics system, DTBIA, lets brain researchers explore Digital Twin Brain simulations from whole regions down to individual voxels and slices.

desk verdict A well-built immersive analytics system for Digital Twin Brain data, but the 'strong evidence' claim outruns the qualitative, co-designer-heavy evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23730 v1 pith:MRCFGVEF submitted 2025-05-29 cs.HC

Jun-Hsiang Yao , Mingzheng Li , Jiayi Liu , Yuxiao Li , Jielin Feng , Jun Han , Qibao Zheng , Jianfeng Feng
show 1 more author
Siming Chen
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords DigitalTwinBrainImmersiveanalyticsVirtualrealityBOLDsignalvisualizationDiffusiontensorimagingEdgebundlingVisualBrain-inspiredcomputing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

DTBIA is an immersive visual analytics system whose central claim is that exploring Digital Twin Brain (DTB) simulation results in virtual reality, rather than on a flat screen, makes it practical for researchers to compare simulated and real brain signals and to trace structural connections. The DTB data it targets are large: BOLD time series from 22,703 voxels sampled over 166 time points, plus a 22,703 by 22,703 DTI connectivity matrix. To keep this volume comprehensible, DTBIA organizes exploration into three hierarchical levels—brain regions, voxels, and slice sections—and uses two VR brain models, one at real scale and one enlarged for flying inside the data. Two case studies with brain researchers are offered as evidence that experts can spot differences between simulated and biological BOLD signals, find regions of interest, and analyze the Default Mode Network. If the claim holds, DTBIA is a working example of immersive analytics applied to brain-inspired AI, where simulation fidelity itself becomes something a researcher can see and inspect.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-scale immersive brain model combined with a three-level exploration workflow. A Real-Scale brain model, positioned near the user for walking and overview, carries functional BOLD-encoded spheres and voxel cubes; a Large-Scale brain model supports egocentric flying for navigation inside the data. The workflow follows the overview-first principle as it moves from region-level to voxel-level to slice-section-level analysis, letting users teleport from a selected region into the large-scale model. The 3D Force-Directed Edge Bundling (3D-FDEB) algorithm carries the structural-analysis load: it takes the top 10% of connections by weight, computes endpoint coordinates, and clusters spatially similar edges using spring and electrostatic-repulsion forces so DTI pathways read as coherent bundles rather than overlapping lines.

What would settle it

A controlled study in which external, non-design users attempt the three defined analytic tasks with DTBIA and with the 2D DTBVis baseline, measuring time, error, and insight quality, would settle the claim: if DTBIA shows no measurable advantage, or if external users cannot reproduce the case-study findings such as the three-time-point BOLD delay, the effectiveness claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a system-design result: a VR environment organized around a hierarchical, top-down workflow enables domain experts to perform the three analytical tasks they said existing tools did not support. DTBIA's workflow moves from region-level comparison of BOLD signals to voxel-level inspection of time-series line charts and DTI connections, and finally to sagittal, horizontal, and coronal slice views; at each stage a Real-Scale brain supports overview and a Large-Scale brain supports immersive flying navigation. A 3D force-directed edge bundling algorithm filters the DTI data to its top 10% of connections, 38,036 links, so structural pathways do not collapse into visual clutter. In the case studies, experts observed that DTB-simulated BOLD signals peaked about three time points later and were weaker than biological signals, and a neuroscience expert used the system to examine the seven-region Default Mode Network, finding high hippocampal BOLD activity consistent with its role in memory and imagination. The paper concludes that these observations and expert feedback provide strong evidence for the system's practicality and effectiveness.

Load-bearing premise

The effectiveness claim rests on the assumption that experts' observations and think-aloud feedback, gathered from a group that includes people who helped design DTBIA, fairly measure how well the system works.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Domain experts can visually compare simulated DTB BOLD signals against biological fMRI side by side, so discrepancies such as timing delays or weaker amplitudes become directly observable.
  • The region-to-voxel-to-slice workflow gives researchers a path from whole-brain overview to specific voxels and anatomical planes, supporting both functional and structural analysis in one environment.
  • The 3D-FDEB filtering to the top 10% of DTI connections makes large structural networks legible in VR, and thresholding lets users isolate the most significant pathways.
  • Because the same workflow handles human and macaque data, DTBIA supports cross-species comparisons of functional and structural brain organization.
  • If the case-study evidence is accepted, VR-based exploration is a viable alternative to 2D tools for DTB research, and the system can aid model validation rather than only post-hoc visualization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The side-by-side comparison could be extended into a quantitative benchmark: automatically computing the three-time-point lag and amplitude ratio between simulated and biological BOLD signals would turn the observed delay into a measurable model-fidelity score.
  • The same hierarchical immersive workflow could transfer to other simulation-validation settings, such as climate or fluid-dynamics models, wherever a 3D spatial field has time series at many points and a dense network of connections.
  • A natural next test is a controlled study with external, task-naive participants comparing DTBIA against DTBVis on the three defined analytic tasks, to separate the contribution of the VR interface from the contribution of the hierarchical data design.
  • The paper's own acknowledged limitations—subjective bias from interactive exploration, cybersickness at low thresholds, and the absence of gesture controls—suggest that usability, not data capacity, is the current bottleneck.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents DTBIA, an immersive visual analytics system for exploring Digital Twin Brain (DTB) data. The system supports hierarchical exploration at region, voxel, and slice levels, with two VR brain models (real-scale and large-scale) and a 3D force-directed edge bundling (FDEB) algorithm for structural DTI connectivity. The authors derive tasks T1-T3 and requirements R1-R3 from a year-and-a-half co-design process with ten domain experts, then report two case studies (Sections 6.1 and 6.2) in which four experts actively used the system and eight others observed. The abstract and Section 8 state that the system's utility and effectiveness are 'validated' and that the studies provide 'strong evidence' for these claims.

Significance. If the validation claim were sound, DTBIA would be a noteworthy contribution to immersive visual analytics for neuroscience, and the co-design with domain experts over an extended period is a genuine strength. The system offers concrete, potentially useful features: hierarchical spatiotemporal navigation, side-by-side simulated-versus-biological comparison, and edge bundling for dense connectivity. However, the current evidence is a feasibility demonstration, not a validation: the case studies involve only four active participants, two of whom co-designed the system, there are no quantitative outcome measures, no baseline comparison, and the authors themselves concede a 'potential for subjective biases' in Section 7.2. The central claim is therefore not supported as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 6 and 8; Abstract] The central claim that the system's utility and effectiveness are 'validated' by the two case studies is not supported by the reported evidence. Only four experts actively used the system (E1, E5, E11, E12), and two of them (E1, E5) were part of the co-design team described in Section 3.2; the other eight original-group experts only observed screen streaming. The study reports no task-completion times, accuracy, error rates, insight counts, or other quantitative metrics, and there is no baseline comparison, for example against DTBVis or a 2D desktop view. The sessions were also assisted by the authors ('we assisted the experts', Section 6.1), so the external participants did not work independently. Section 7.2 itself states that 'further research is needed to assess the reliability and objectivity of the findings.' The abstract and Section 8 overstate the strength of this evidence.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 6] The evaluation is circular in a load-bearing way. Tasks T1-T3 and requirements R1-R3 were derived from the same ten experts (E1-E10) who later evaluated the system, with E1 and E5 serving as primary case-study participants and the remaining eight providing additional feedback. The two external experts (E11, E12) were not involved in task definition, but they constitute only a small fraction of the feedback. The positive statements from E1 and E5 after an 18-month co-design process cannot serve as an impartial test of the system's effectiveness for its intended user population. This circularity is a core weakness, not a presentation issue, and it directly affects the validity of the 'strong evidence' conclusion.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (1)] The 3D-FDEB algorithm, which is a claimed contribution for reducing visual clutter, is not specified precisely enough to be reproduced. In Eq. (1), the summation over Q is written as ∑_{Q∈E} ‖p_i − q_i‖ / Ce(P,Q), but the points q_i and the exact form of the compatibility function Ce(P,Q) are not defined. The free parameters kP and Ce are not given any default values or tuning procedure, and the 'top 10%' threshold for selecting connections is used without justification or sensitivity analysis (it appears again in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.2). Without this information, the reader cannot assess whether the bundling actually improves clarity, and the contribution is not reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The heading 'Reion-Level Exploration' contains a typo; it should read 'Region-Level Exploration'.
  2. [Section 6, opening paragraph] The text says '12 experts participated in the evaluation,' but only four experts actively interacted with the system; the other eight observed a screen stream. This phrasing overstates the amount of hands-on evaluation.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'involving with brain research experts' is awkward; consider 'involving brain research experts' or 'with brain research experts.'
  4. [Sections 4.3 and 6.1] The thresholds are stated without rationale: the 'top 10%' in Section 4.3 and the '0.8' connection-weight threshold in Section 6.1. A brief explanation of how these values were chosen would help readers understand their role in the findings.
  5. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'Based on the feedback received from the experts, the experts initially expressed the positive evaluation of the system's interface representation' is redundant and could be streamlined.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The effectiveness claim is partially circular: the tasks and requirements were derived from the same expert group that later supplied the positive case-study feedback, leaving only two external evaluators as an independent check.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 6, and 8]
    "Section 3.2.1: "Based on expert feedback, we categorized them into the following areas: T1: Exploring Similarity Between Simulated and Real Neural Signals ... T3: Topological Analysis of Structural Brain Data." Section 6: "In total, 12 experts participated in the evaluation: two from the original group (E1 and E5) and two external experts (E11 and E12). The remaining eight experts from the original group provided additional feedback by observing the VR interactions of the selected experts (E1 and E5) via screen streaming.""

    The design inputs (tasks T1-T3, requirements R1-R3) were elicited from E1-E10 over a year and a half, with E1, E2, E3, E5, E7 explicitly named as the sources of the tasks. The evidence for the central claim that DTBIA is 'validated' and provides 'strong evidence supporting the practicality and effectiveness of our system' is then the positive feedback of E1 and E5 plus eight other members of that same original group. Thus the criterion used to confirm success and the specification used to build the system are supplied by the same people; their approval is not an independent test.

full rationale

The paper contains no mathematical derivation whose output is equivalent to its input: the FDEB force formula is standard, the three-level workflow is implemented as described, and the DTBIA/DtbVis relationship is presented as incremental prior work rather than as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem. The circularity is confined to the evaluation of the effectiveness claim. The tasks and requirements were co-designed with E1-E10, and the case studies then treat those same experts' affirmative feedback, plus screen-streamed comments from the rest of the original group, as 'validation.' Because the acceptance metric (expert satisfaction) is drawn from the same population that generated the design specification, agreement is close to forced; only E11 and E12 are external, and their sessions were assisted. Section 7.2's own admission of 'potential for subjective biases' and the need for 'further research' supports this reading. The algorithmic and system contributions are not circular, so the score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on design choices and domain assumptions rather than on a formal derivation. The paper's substantive weight is carried by (a) the comparability of DTB simulation output to biological fMRI/DTI data, (b) the transfer of force-directed edge bundling and VR navigation methods to this data, and (c) the validity of self-reported expert feedback as evidence. These are all reasonable but untested assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • Top 10% connection threshold = 10% (reported as 38,036 links for 22,703 voxels)
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.3 and 5.2.2 to reduce visual clutter; not derived from data or task analysis.
  • FDEB force parameters (kP and compatibility Ce) = not specified
    Force-directed edge bundling equation in Section 4.3 requires spring and electrostatic constants; the paper gives the formula but no values or tuning procedure, so the visual result depends on unstated hand choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AAL atlas parcellation provides valid anatomical regions for human DTB and biological BOLD data.
    Section 3.1.1 states the human brain is divided into 92 regions based on AAL; the system and case studies rely on these labels being meaningful for comparing simulated and real signals.
  • domain assumption DTB-simulated BOLD signals are comparable to biological resting-state BOLD signals for side-by-side visual assessment.
    Task T1 (Section 3.2.1) and the case studies compare DTB and biological BOLD as if they share the same temporal and spatial meaning, which is the premise of the model-validity analysis.
  • domain assumption Force-directed edge bundling improves interpretability of dense DTI connections without distorting important topology.
    Section 4.3 adopts FDEB to 'enhance the visualization of key structural connections'; the paper assumes this known algorithm transfers to 3D DTB data and preserves the connections experts need.
  • domain assumption Immersive VR navigation provides better spatial understanding than 2D displays for this type of data.
    Design requirement R1 (Section 3.2.2) and Section 4.2 assert that egocentric walking/flying improves spatial awareness; this is cited from prior IA literature but not tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption Qualitative expert feedback is sufficient evidence to establish the system's utility and effectiveness.
    The validation in Section 6 consists of case-study observations and verbal feedback; no quantitative outcome measures or baseline comparison are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DTBIA: An Immersive Visual Analytics System for Brain-Inspired Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRCFGVEF

@misc{pith2026250523730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DTBIA: An Immersive Visual Analytics System for Brain-Inspired Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRCFGVEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23730}
}
read the original abstract

The Digital Twin Brain (DTB) is an advanced artificial intelligence framework that integrates spiking neurons to simulate complex cognitive functions and collaborative behaviors. For domain experts, visualizing the DTB's simulation outcomes is essential to understanding complex cognitive activities. However, this task poses significant challenges due to DTB data's inherent characteristics, including its high-dimensionality, temporal dynamics, and spatial complexity. To address these challenges, we developed DTBIA, an Immersive Visual Analytics System for Brain-Inspired Research. In collaboration with domain experts, we identified key requirements for effectively visualizing spatiotemporal and topological patterns at multiple levels of detail. DTBIA incorporates a hierarchical workflow - ranging from brain regions to voxels and slice sections - along with immersive navigation and a 3D edge bundling algorithm to enhance clarity and provide deeper insights into both functional (BOLD) and structural (DTI) brain data. The utility and effectiveness of DTBIA are validated through two case studies involving with brain research experts. The results underscore the system's role in enhancing the comprehension of complex neural behaviors and interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23730 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The DTBIA system offers a multi-level exploration framework, incorporating three hierarchical processes: (A) Region-Level, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure illustrates the workflow of DTBIA, combining hierarchical exploration from region to voxel and slice levels with immersive navigation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure illustrates three exploration paths of DTBIA. The green paths begin by comparing biological brain data with DTB data through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure demonstrates the system’s capability to integrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We use different colors to display each of these 7 regions in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure showcases key findings from the first case study: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This figure showcases the second case study’s findings in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A system hierarchy for brain-inspired computing

    Youhui Zhang, Peng Qu, Yu Ji, Weihao Zhang, Guangrong Gao, Guanrui Wang, Sen Song, Guoqi Li, Wenguang Chen, Weimin Zheng, et al. A system hierarchy for brain-inspired computing. Nature, 586(7829):378– 384, 2020. 1, 2

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Brain-inspired computing: Models and architectures

    Keshab K Parhi and Nanda K Unnikrishnan. Brain-inspired computing: Models and architectures. IEEE Open Journal of Circuits and Systems, 1:185–204, 2020. 1, 2

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    How ai and neuroscience drive each other forwards

    Neil Savage. How ai and neuroscience drive each other forwards. Nature, 571(7766):S15–S15, 2019. 1

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    How ai could lead to a better understanding of the brain

    Viren Jain. How ai could lead to a better understanding of the brain. Nature, 623(7986):247–250, 2023. 1, 2

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Brain-inspired computing: A systematic survey and future trends

    Guoqi Li, Lei Deng, Huajin Tang, Gang Pan, Yonghong Tian, Kaushik Roy, and Wolfgang Maass. Brain-inspired computing: A systematic survey and future trends. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2024. 1, 2

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Human brain computing and brain-inspired intelligence, 2024

    Jianfeng Feng, Viktor Jirsa, and Wenlian Lu. Human brain computing and brain-inspired intelligence, 2024. 1, 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    The human digital twin brain in the resting state and in action

    Wenlian Lu, Qibao Zheng, Ningsheng Xu, Jianfeng Feng, and DTB Con- sortium. The human digital twin brain in the resting state and in action. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15963, 2022. 1, 2

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Digital Twin Brain: a simulation and assimilation platform for whole human brain

    Wenlian Lu, Longbin Zeng, Xin Du, Wenyong Zhang, Shitong Xiang, Huarui Wang, Jiexiang Wang, Mingda Ji, Yubo Hou, Minglong Wang, et al. Digital twin brain: a simulation and assimilation platform for whole human brain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01241, 2023. 1, 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    The digital twin brain: A bridge between biological and artificial intelligence

    Hui Xiong, Congying Chu, Lingzhong Fan, Ming Song, Jiaqi Zhang, Yawei Ma, Ruonan Zheng, Junyang Zhang, Zhengyi Yang, and Tianzi Jiang. The digital twin brain: A bridge between biological and artificial intelligence. Intelligent Computing, 2:0055, 2023. 2

    2023

  2. [10]

    Dtbvis: An interactive visual comparison system for digital twin brain and human brain

    Yuxiao Li, Xinhong Li, Siqi Shen, Longbin Zeng, Richen Liu, Qibao Zheng, Jianfeng Feng, and Siming Chen. Dtbvis: An interactive visual comparison system for digital twin brain and human brain. Visual Infor- matics, 7(2):41–53, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  3. [11]

    The blue brain project

    Henry Markram. The blue brain project. Nature reviews neuroscience, 7(2):153–160, 2006. 2

    2006

  4. [12]

    The human brain project: creating a european research infrastructure to decode the human brain

    Katrin Amunts, Christoph Ebell, Jeff Muller, Martin Telefont, Alois Knoll, and Thomas Lippert. The human brain project: creating a european research infrastructure to decode the human brain. Neuron, 92(3):574– 581, 2016. 2

    2016

  5. [13]

    The virtual brain: a simulator of primate brain network dynamics

    Paula Sanz Leon, Stuart A Knock, M Marmaduke Woodman, Lia Do- mide, Jochen Mersmann, Anthony R McIntosh, and Viktor Jirsa. The virtual brain: a simulator of primate brain network dynamics. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 7:10, 2013. 2

    2013

  6. [14]

    The spinnaker project

    Steve B Furber, Francesco Galluppi, Steve Temple, and Luis A Plana. The spinnaker project. Proceedings of the IEEE, 102(5):652–665, 2014. 2

    2014

  7. [15]

    Building a spiking neural network model of the basal ganglia on spinnaker

    Basabdatta Sen-Bhattacharya, Sebastian James, Oliver Rhodes, Indar Sugiarto, Andrew Rowley, Alan B Stokes, Kevin Gurney, and Steve B Furber. Building a spiking neural network model of the basal ganglia on spinnaker. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 10(...

    2018

  8. [16]

    fmriprep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional mri

    Oscar Esteban, Christopher J Markiewicz, Ross W Blair, Craig A Moodie, A Ilkay Isik, Asier Erramuzpe, James D Kent, Mathias Goncalves, Eliz- abeth DuPre, Madeleine Snyder, et al. fmriprep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional mri. Nature methods, 16(1):111–116, 2019. 2

    2019

  9. [17]

    Opinion: Mapping context and content: the brainmap model

    Peter T Fox and Jack L Lancaster. Opinion: Mapping context and content: the brainmap model. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 3(4):319—321, April

  10. [18]

    The human connectome project: A retrospective

    Jennifer Elam, Matthew Glasser, Michael Harms, Stamatios Sotiropoulos, Jesper Andersson, Gregory Burgess, Sandra Curtiss, Robert Oostenveld, Linda Larson-Prior, Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen, Michael Hodge, Eileen Cler, Daniel Marcus, Deanna Barch, Essa Yacoub, Stephen Smith, Kamil U...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Brainbrowser: Distributed, web-based neurological data visualization

    Tarek Sherif, Nicolas Kassis, Marc-Étienne Rousseau, Reza Adalat, and Alan Evans. Brainbrowser: Distributed, web-based neurological data visualization. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 8:89, 01 2014. 2

    2014

  12. [20]

    Connexel visualization: a software implementation of glyphs and edge-bundling for dense connectivity data using braingl

    Joachim Böttger, Ralph Schurade, Estrid Jakobsen, Alexander Schäfer, and Daniel Margulies. Connexel visualization: a software implementation of glyphs and edge-bundling for dense connectivity data using braingl. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 2014. 2

    2014

  13. [21]

    The representation of semantic information across human cerebral cortex during listening versus reading is invariant to stimulus modality

    Fatma Deniz, Anwar Nunez-Elizalde, Alexander Huth, and Jack Gallant. The representation of semantic information across human cerebral cortex during listening versus reading is invariant to stimulus modality. The Journal of Neuroscience, 39:0675–19, 08 2019. 2

    2019

  14. [22]

    Arsiwalla, Riccardo Zucca, Alberto Betella, Enrique Martinez, David Dalmazzo, Pedro Omedas, Gustavo Deco, and Paul F

    Xerxes D. Arsiwalla, Riccardo Zucca, Alberto Betella, Enrique Martinez, David Dalmazzo, Pedro Omedas, Gustavo Deco, and Paul F. M. J. Ver- schure. Network dynamics with brainx3: a large-scale simulation of the human brain network with real-time interaction. Frontiers in Neuroi...

    2015

  15. [23]

    Al-Awami, Johanna Beyer, Hendrik Strobelt, Narayanan Kasthuri, Jeff W

    Ali K. Al-Awami, Johanna Beyer, Hendrik Strobelt, Narayanan Kasthuri, Jeff W. Lichtman, Hanspeter Pfister, and Markus Hadwiger. Neurolines: A subway map metaphor for visualizing nanoscale neuronal connectivity. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):2...

    2014

  16. [24]

    Garcia-Cantero, Juan P

    Juan J. Garcia-Cantero, Juan P. Brito, Susana Mata, Sofia Bayona, and Luis Pastor. Neurotessmesh: A tool for the generation and visualiza- tion of neuron meshes and adaptive on-the-fly refinement. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 11, 2017. 2

    2017

  17. [25]

    Krum, Thai Phan, Dominique Duncan, Ryan Essex, Mark Bolas, and Arthur Toga

    Tyler Ard, David M. Krum, Thai Phan, Dominique Duncan, Ryan Essex, Mark Bolas, and Arthur Toga. Nivr: Neuro imaging in virtual reality. In 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pages 465–466, 2017. 2

    2017

  18. [26]

    Springer, 2018

    Kim Marriott, Falk Schreiber, Tim Dwyer, Karsten Klein, Nathalie Henry Riche, Takayuki Itoh, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and Bruce H Thomas.Im- mersive analytics, volume 11190. Springer, 2018. 2

    2018

  19. [27]

    Tim Dwyer, Kim Marriott, Tobias Isenberg, Karsten Klein, Nathalie Riche, Falk Schreiber, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and Bruce H. Thomas. Immersive Analytics: An Introduction, pages 1–23. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018. 2

    2018

  20. [28]

    Metaverse: Perspectives from graphics, interactions and visualization

    Yuheng Zhao, Jinjing Jiang, Yi Chen, Richen Liu, Yalong Yang, Xi- angyang Xue, and Siming Chen. Metaverse: Perspectives from graphics, interactions and visualization. Visual Informatics, 6(1):56–67, 2022. 2

    2022

  21. [29]

    Survey of immersive analytics

    Adrien Fonnet and Yannick Prie. Survey of immersive analytics. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 27(3):2101–2122,

  22. [30]

    Immersive analytics with abstract 3d visualizations: A survey

    Matthias Kraus, Johannes Fuchs, Björn Sommer, Karsten Klein, Ulrich En- gelke, Daniel Keim, and Falk Schreiber. Immersive analytics with abstract 3d visualizations: A survey. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 41, pages 201–229. Wiley Online Library, 2022. 2

    2022

  23. [31]

    Grand challenges in immersive analytics

    Barrett Ens, Benjamin Bach, Maxime Cordeil, Ulrich Engelke, Marcos Serrano, Wesley Willett, Arnaud Prouzeau, Christoph Anthes, Wolfgang Büschel, Cody Dunne, et al. Grand challenges in immersive analytics. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Timetables: Embodied exploration of immersive spatio- temporal data

    Yidan Zhang, Barrett Ens, Kadek Ananta Satriadi, Arnaud Prouzeau, and Sarah Goodwin. Timetables: Embodied exploration of immersive spatio- temporal data. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pages 599–605, 2022. 2

    2022

  25. [33]

    Mapstack: Exploring multilayered geospatial data in virtual reality

    Maxim Spur, Vincent Tourre, Erwan David, Guillaume Moreau, and Patrick Callet. Mapstack: Exploring multilayered geospatial data in virtual reality. pages 88–99, 01 2020. 2

    2020

  26. [34]

    Immersive visualisation of geo-temporal narratives in law enforcement

    Andrew Cunningham, James Walsh, and Bruce Thomas. Immersive visualisation of geo-temporal narratives in law enforcement. In 2018 International Symposium on Big Data Visual and Immersive Analytics (BDVA), pages 1–8, 2018. 2

    2018

  27. [35]

    Tivee: Visual exploration and explanation of badminton tactics in immersive visual- izations

    Xiangtong Chu, Xiao Xie, Shuainan Ye, Haolin Lu, Hongguang Xiao, Zeqing Yuan, Zhutian Chen, Hui Zhang, and Yingcai Wu. Tivee: Visual exploration and explanation of badminton tactics in immersive visual- izations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 28(1)...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Shuttlespace: Exploring and analyzing movement trajectory in immersive visualization

    Shuainan Ye, Zhutian Chen, Xiangtong Chu, Yifan Wang, Siwei Fu, Lejun Shen, Kun Zhou, and Yingcai Wu. Shuttlespace: Exploring and analyzing movement trajectory in immersive visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):860–869, 2021. 2

    2021

  29. [37]

    Urbanvr: An immersive analytics system for context-aware urban design

    Chi Zhang, Wei Zeng, and Ligang Liu. Urbanvr: An immersive analytics system for context-aware urban design. Computers & Graphics, 99:128– 138, 2021. 2

    2021

  30. [38]

    Iatk: An immer- sive analytics toolkit

    Maxime Cordeil, Andrew Cunningham, Benjamin Bach, Christophe Hurter, Bruce H Thomas, Kim Marriott, and Tim Dwyer. Iatk: An immer- sive analytics toolkit. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pages 200–209. IEEE, 2019. 2

    2019

  31. [39]

    Dxr: A toolkit for building immer- sive data visualizations

    Ronell Sicat, Jiabao Li, Junyoung Choi, Maxime Cordeil, Won-Ki Jeong, Benjamin Bach, and Hanspeter Pfister. Dxr: A toolkit for building immer- sive data visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 25(1):715–725, 2018. 2

    2018

  32. [40]

    Johnson J. G. Keiriz, Liang Zhan, Olusola Ajilore, Alex D. Leow, and An- gus G. Forbes. NeuroCave: A web-based immersive visualization platform for exploring connectome datasets. Network Neuroscience, 2(3):344–361, 09 2018. 3

    2018

  33. [41]

    Sonia: an immersive customizable virtual reality system for the education and exploration of brain networks

    Owen Hellum, Christopher Steele, and Yiming Xiao. Sonia: an immersive customizable virtual reality system for the education and exploration of brain networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.09772, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Exploration of virtual and augmented reality for visual analytics and 3d volume rendering of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri) data

    Michael de Ridder, Younhyun Jung, Robin Huang, Jinman Kim, and David Dagan Feng. Exploration of virtual and augmented reality for visual analytics and 3d volume rendering of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri) data. In 2015 Big Data Visual Analytics (BDVA), pages 1–8....

    2015

  35. [43]

    Multiuser virtual reality environment for visualising neuroimaging data

    David W Shattuck. Multiuser virtual reality environment for visualising neuroimaging data. Healthcare Technology Letters, 5(5):183–188, 2018. 3

    2018

  36. [44]

    A taxonomy of spatial-temporal data visualization

    Ying Zhu, Pragna Reddy Kancharla, and Chaitanya Sai Kumar Talluru. A taxonomy of spatial-temporal data visualization. In 2021 25th Interna- tional Conference Information Visualisation (IV), pages 223–228. IEEE,

    2021

  37. [45]

    A survey of multi-space techniques in spatio-temporal simulation data visualization

    Xueyi Chen, Liming Shen, Ziqi Sha, Richen Liu, Siming Chen, Genlin Ji, and Chao Tan. A survey of multi-space techniques in spatio-temporal simulation data visualization. Visual Informatics, 3(3):129–139, 2019. 3

    2019

  38. [46]

    Andrienko, Gennady L

    Natalia V . Andrienko, Gennady L. Andrienko, and Peter Gatalsky. Ex- ploratory spatio-temporal visualization: an analytical review. J. Vis. Lang. Comput., 14:503–541, 2003. 3

    2003

  39. [47]

    The space-time cube revisited from a geovisualization perspective

    Menno-Jan Kraak. The space-time cube revisited from a geovisualization perspective. Proc 21st Int Cartogr Conf, 07 2008. 3

    2008

  40. [48]

    Andrienko, and Gennady L

    Peter Gatalsky, Natalia V . Andrienko, and Gennady L. Andrienko. Inter- active analysis of event data using space-time cube. Proceedings. Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004., pages 145–152, 2004. 3

    2004

  41. [49]

    Sidharth Thakur and Andrew J. Hanson. A 3d visualization of multiple time series on maps. In 2010 14th International Conference Information Visualisation, pages 336–343, 2010. 3

    2010

  42. [50]

    The great wall of space-time

    Christian Tominski and Hans-Jörg Schulz. The great wall of space-time. pages 199–206, 01 2012. 3

    2012

  43. [51]

    A comparison of spatiotemporal visualizations for 3d urban analytics

    Roberta Mota, Nivan Ferreira, Julio Daniel Silva, Marius Horga, Marcos Lage, Luis Ceferino, Usman Alim, Ehud Sharlin, and Fabio Miranda. A comparison of spatiotemporal visualizations for 3d urban analytics. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 29(1):1277–1287,

  44. [52]

    V o, Juliana Freire, and Cláudio T

    Nivan Ferreira, Jorge Poco, Huy T. V o, Juliana Freire, and Cláudio T. Silva. Visual exploration of big spatio-temporal urban data: A study of new york city taxi trips.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2149–2158, 2013. 3

    2013

  45. [53]

    Variable-based spatiotemporal trajectory data visualization illustrated

    Jing He, Haonan Chen, Yijin Chen, Xinming Tang, and Yebin Zou. Variable-based spatiotemporal trajectory data visualization illustrated. IEEE Access, 7:143646–143672, 2019. 3

    2019

  46. [54]

    Fabian Nagel, Giuliano Castiglia, Gemza Ademaj, Juri Buchmller, Udo Schlegel, and Daniel A. Keim. cpmviz: A web-based visualization tool for uncertain spatiotemporal data. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), pages 140–141, 2019. 3

    2019

  47. [55]

    V oila: Visual anomaly detection and monitoring with streaming spatiotemporal data

    Nan Cao, Chaoguang Lin, Qiuhan Zhu, Yu-Ru Lin, Xian Teng, and Xidao Wen. V oila: Visual anomaly detection and monitoring with streaming spatiotemporal data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):23–33, 2018. 3

    2018

  48. [56]

    Ddlvis: Real-time visual query of spatiotemporal data distribution via density dictionary learning

    Chenhui Li, George Baciu, Yunzhe Wang, Junjie Chen, and Changbo Wang. Ddlvis: Real-time visual query of spatiotemporal data distribution via density dictionary learning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):1062–1072, 2022. 3

    2022

  49. [57]

    Mapping, learning, visualization, classification, and understand- ing of fmri data in the neucube evolving spatiotemporal data machine of spiking neural networks

    Nikola K Kasabov, Maryam Gholami Doborjeh, and Zohreh Gholami Doborjeh. Mapping, learning, visualization, classification, and understand- ing of fmri data in the neucube evolving spatiotemporal data machine of spiking neural networks. IEEE transactions on neural networks and l...

    2016

  50. [58]

    Interactive visualization for brain spatio-temporal networks

    Andrea Purgato, Marco D Santambrogio, Tanya Berger-Wolf, and Angus G Forbes. Interactive visualization for brain spatio-temporal networks. In 2017 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical & Health Informatics (BHI), pages 21–24. IEEE, 2017. 3

    2017

  51. [59]

    Tzourio-Mazoyer, B

    N. Tzourio-Mazoyer, B. Landeau, D. Papathanassiou, F. Crivello, O. Etard, N. Delcroix, B. Mazoyer, and M. Joliot. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in spm using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the mni mri single-subject brain. NeuroImage, 15(1):273–289, 2002. 3

    2002

  52. [60]

    Resting-state functional mri: every- thing that nonexperts have always wanted to know

    Han Lv, Zhenchang Wang, Elizabeth Tong, Leanne M Williams, Greg Zaharchuk, Michael Zeineh, Andrea N Goldstein-Piekarski, Tali M Ball, Chengde Liao, and Max Wintermark. Resting-state functional mri: every- thing that nonexperts have always wanted to know. American Journal of Ne...

    2018

  53. [61]

    Cognitive transfer of spatial awareness states from immersive virtual environments to reality

    Katerina Mania, Shahrul Badariah, Matthew Coxon, and Phil Watten. Cognitive transfer of spatial awareness states from immersive virtual environments to reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 7(2):1–14, 2010. 4

    2010

  54. [62]

    Immersive virtual reality to enhance the spatial awareness of students

    Fabin Rasheed, Prasad Onkar, and Marisha Narula. Immersive virtual reality to enhance the spatial awareness of students. In Proceedings of the 7th Indian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 154–160,

  55. [63]

    Locomotion tech- niques for dynamic environments: Effects on spatial knowledge and user experiences

    Hyunjeong Kim, Sang-Bin Jeon, and In-Kwon Lee. Locomotion tech- niques for dynamic environments: Effects on spatial knowledge and user experiences. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,

  56. [64]

    Scene transitions and teleportation in virtual reality and the implications for spatial awareness and sickness

    Kasra Rahimi, Colin Banigan, and Eric D Ragan. Scene transitions and teleportation in virtual reality and the implications for spatial awareness and sickness. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 26(6):2273–2287, 2018. 4

    2018

  57. [65]

    The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments

    Peter Willemsen, Mark B Colton, Sarah H Creem-Regehr, and William B Thompson. The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 6(2):1–14, 2009. 4

    2009

  58. [66]

    An immersive virtual reality system for semi-autonomous driving simulation: a comparison between realistic and 6-dof controller-based interaction

    Daniele Sportillo, Alexis Paljic, Mehdi Boukhris, Philippe Fuchs, Luciano Ojeda, and Vincent Roussarie. An immersive virtual reality system for semi-autonomous driving simulation: a comparison between realistic and 6-dof controller-based interaction. In Proceedings of the 9th ...

    2017

  59. [67]

    The craft of informa- tion visualization

    Ben Shneiderman, B Bederson, and B Shneiderman. The craft of informa- tion visualization. 2003. 4

    2003

  60. [68]

    A taxonomy of 3d occlusion management for visualization

    Niklas Elmqvist and Philippas Tsigas. A taxonomy of 3d occlusion management for visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 14(5):1095–1109, 2008. 5

    2008

  61. [69]

    Vr exploration assistance through automatic occlusion removal

    Lili Wang, Jian Wu, Xuefeng Yang, and V oicu Popescu. Vr exploration assistance through automatic occlusion removal. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 25(5):2083–2092, 2019. 5

    2019

  62. [70]

    The effect of exploration mode and frame of reference in immersive analytics

    Jorge Wagner, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and Luciana Nedel. The effect of exploration mode and frame of reference in immersive analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(9):3252–3264,

  63. [71]

    Occlusion management in vr: A comparative study

    Lili Wang, Han Zhao, Zesheng Wang, Jian Wu, Bingqiang Li, Zhiming He, and V oicu Popescu. Occlusion management in vr: A comparative study. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pages 708–716. IEEE, 2019. 5

    2019

  64. [72]

    Conservative occlusion culling for urban visualization using a slice-wise data structure

    Türker Yılmaz and U˘gur Güdükbay. Conservative occlusion culling for urban visualization using a slice-wise data structure. Graphical Models, 69(3-4):191–210, 2007. 5

    2007

  65. [73]

    Interactive 3d force-directed edge bundling

    Daniel Zielasko, Benjamin Weyers, Bernd Hentschel, and Torsten W Kuhlen. Interactive 3d force-directed edge bundling. InComputer graphics forum, volume 35, pages 51–60. Wiley Online Library, 2016. 5

    2016

  66. [74]

    Force-directed edge bundling for graph visualization

    Danny Holten and Jarke J Van Wijk. Force-directed edge bundling for graph visualization. In Computer graphics forum , volume 28, pages 983–990. Wiley Online Library, 2009. 5

    2009

  67. [75]

    Visual comparison for information visualization

    Michael Gleicher, Danielle Albers, Rick Walker, Ilir Jusufi, Charles D Hansen, and Jonathan C Roberts. Visual comparison for information visualization. Information Visualization, 10(4):289–309, 2011. 6

    2011

  68. [76]

    The cell-type specific cortical microcircuit: relating structure and activity in a full-scale spiking network model

    Tobias C Potjans and Markus Diesmann. The cell-type specific cortical microcircuit: relating structure and activity in a full-scale spiking network model. Cerebral cortex, 24(3):785–806, 2014. 9

    2014

  69. [77]

    Multi-scale account of the network struc- ture of macaque visual cortex

    Maximilian Schmidt, Rembrandt Bakker, Claus C Hilgetag, Markus Dies- mann, and Sacha J Van Albada. Multi-scale account of the network struc- ture of macaque visual cortex. Brain Structure and Function, 223(3):1409– 1435, 2018. 9

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.