Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 97 references

The paper claims that seen images can be decoded from fMRI within about ten seconds of stimulus onset, using only one hour of a new participant's scan data.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:32 UTC pith:BI4TK4VC

load-bearing objection A real engineering proof-of-concept for putting MindEye2 inside a real-time fMRI loop; the live-session evidence is latency-only, so the paper's central demonstration is still simulation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22753 v1 pith:BI4TK4VC submitted 2026-07-23 cs.CV cs.AIq-bio.NC

Real-time Reconstruction of Human Visual Perception from fMRI

Rishab S. Iyer , Jiaxin Cindy Tu , Cesar Kadir Torrico Villanueva , Anish Mahishi , Ross P. Kempner , Jacob S. Prince , Ernest W. Lo , Akash Bhowmick
show 5 more authors
Hritik Arasu Amaar Chughtai Elizabeth A. McDevitt Paul S. Scotti Kenneth A. Norman
This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AIq-bio.NC
keywords real-time fMRIvisual decodingimage reconstructionimage retrievalsingle-trial decodingbrain-computer interfaceneurofeedbackfoundation models
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to show that the most powerful fMRI-to-image decoding methods can be squeezed into real time. It adapts a large pretrained decoder, fine-tunes it on about one hour of 3T fMRI from a new participant, and then reconstructs or retrieves the exact image the participant saw within 10–15 seconds of seeing it. Across three real-time-compatible speeds, retrieval stays far above chance even in the fastest condition, and performance improves smoothly as the model is allowed to wait longer. If right, this moves image-level decoding from an offline, hours-long computation to a closed-loop tool that could drive neurofeedback or brain-computer interfaces.

Core claim

The central discovery is that single-trial visual decoding survives the switch from offline to real-time processing. In the fastest condition — waiting about 7.9 seconds for the BOLD response to peak, then running motion correction, a per-trial GLM, and decoder inference — the model retrieves the seen image from a 50-image pool 36–40% of the time (chance 2%) and produces reconstructions that score above chance on multiple metrics. This works with a condensed version of a 700M+ parameter architecture, on 3T rather than 7T data, and after only one training session of roughly one hour from the new participant.

What carries the argument

A large pretrained fMRI-to-image backbone that maps single-trial beta estimates into a vision-language embedding space. In real time, each new brain volume is aligned to the training session, a general linear model converts the overlapping BOLD response into one beta vector per trial, and that vector is projected into the shared embedding space; a frozen diffusion model turns the embedding into an image, or nearest-neighbor search retrieves the closest candidate. The key is keeping inference under about five seconds so the only real latency is the unavoidable hemodynamic delay.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the temporary overlap between pretraining and test images did not meaningfully inflate the reported real-time accuracy; if that leakage is large, the claim that held-out perception is being decoded weakens.

What would settle it

Fine-tune or pretrain the model with a strict continuous-block train/test split, so no test image ever shares a block with a training image, then measure fast real-time retrieval accuracy on the same 50-image test set. If top-1 accuracy falls to the 2% chance level, the real-time decoding claim is falsified; if it stays above roughly 30%, the central result holds.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Real-time neurofeedback can now target fine-grained visual content, not just coarse category or arousal levels.
  • A new participant can get a working decoder after a single one-hour training session on standard hospital 3T scanners.
  • Researchers can trade delay against accuracy: waiting roughly 30 seconds gives most of the offline benefit, suggesting an operating point for closed-loop experiments.
  • Retrieval at a 2-item pool reached about 90% in the fastest condition, so relative comparisons between two mental images are already usable for latent-space feedback.
  • The same real-time streaming architecture can potentially host other computationally heavy decoding models beyond image reconstruction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the one-hour fine-tuning result generalizes beyond the single participant tested, the main cost of adopting fMRI-based brain-computer interfaces shifts from data collection to access to a scanner.
  • The leakage caveat in the appendix suggests a clean test: re-train with a strictly block-wise split; until that is done, the exact size of the real-time decoding advantage is uncertain.
  • The same pipeline could be pointed at imagined rather than seen images, since the latent-space mapping may transfer; the paper does not test this.
  • Real-time decoding could expose private cognitive content, so ethical safeguards may need to be built into the interface itself, not just added as consent language.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a real-time-compatible adaptation of the MindEye2 fMRI-to-image decoding pipeline, integrated with the RT-Cloud platform. Using a 3T scanner and approximately one hour of fine-tuning data from a new participant, the authors report above-chance single-trial image retrieval and reconstruction in 'fast' (14.5 s), 'slow' (36 s), and 'end-of-run' (2.7 min) real-time-compatible settings, with retrieval accuracy up to 36–40% (chance 2%) in the fast condition. They replicate the qualitative pattern on held-out NSD subj01 and include a no-pretraining control. The actual live RT-Cloud session is described as a proof-of-concept and is used to report processing latencies; all decoding accuracy metrics come from simulated real-time replay of previously acquired data. The paper also documents preprocessing, model architecture, training, and evaluation details, and makes code and data publicly available.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, this would be a notable practical advance: it would show that a state-of-the-art generative fMRI decoder can operate inside the real-time fMRI envelope with only ~1 hour of new-participant data, opening doors to closed-loop neurofeedback and BCI applications. The paper's strengths include a clear comparison of pipeline variants, a no-pretraining control, replication on an independent NSD subject, detailed latency measurements, and open release of code and data. These are real contributions. However, the headline claim that the authors 'demonstrate for the first time' real-time single-trial decoding is not directly supported by the evidence, because the live session was not quantitatively scored. The simulated real-time analyses are valuable and well designed, but they do not by themselves prove that the end-to-end live system produces above-chance outputs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §3.3; §6] The headline claim, stated in the abstract as 'we demonstrate for the first time that it is possible to decode seen images from fMRI at single-trial resolution in real-time' and repeated in the contributions list, is not supported by the evidence reported for the live session. Every decoding accuracy result in Tables 1, 3, and 4 and Figures 4–8 comes from 'simulated real-time analyses' (explicitly stated in §3.3 and §6). Table 2 reports only latencies from the live RT-Cloud session; no retrieval or reconstruction accuracy is reported for live trials. A simulation can establish that an algorithm is compatible with a real-time latency budget, but it does not verify the end-to-end live system — DICOM streaming, online registration and motion correction, time-pressured GLM fitting, and inference within a fixed wall-clock window — actually produces above-chance outputs. The abstract's phrasin
  2. [§2.6.1; Appendix A.1] The pretraining/test interleaving leakage admitted in Appendix A.1 is load-bearing for the claimed generalization to held-out perception and should be quantified. Because the test images (the 50 special515 images) were temporally interleaved with pretraining images in the NSD acquisition, BOLD responses to test trials can contaminate the beta estimates of adjacent pretraining trials. The authors argue this is minor because the model saw fMRI data but not CLIP labels for the test images; however, leakage through feature representations does not require access to labels. If contamination materially inflated the reported single-trial retrieval/reconstruction numbers, the central claim that held-out perception is being decoded would be weakened. The fact that the test set is fixed across all evaluations makes this concern concrete. Please add a quantitative control, for example re-running pr
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3; Table 2] The advertised '9.5 seconds post image onset for retrieval' is not directly derivable from Table 2. Summing the fast-condition latencies for retrieval (stimulus delay 7.85 s + motion correction 0.39 s + registration 0.18 s + GLM fit 1.09 s + inference 0.19 s + retrieval 0.50 s) gives about 10.2 s. Section 3.3 itself says 'fast' retrieval takes ~10s. Please correct the abstract and contributions to use a consistent, well-defined latency.
  2. [Table 2] The 'Total Latency' row appears to sum reconstruction and retrieval times as if they were serial components. If reconstruction and retrieval are alternative inference branches that can be run in parallel or selectively, the total latency should be defined and labeled accordingly to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is labeled 'Hand-picked example reconstructions.' Since the paper also provides randomly selected reconstructions in Figure 10, the text could briefly note that Figure 2 is intended to show favorable examples, to prevent over-interpretation.
  4. [§2.7] For the two-way reconstruction metrics, the description says chance is 50%, but the exact averaging procedure over pairwise comparisons could be clarified a bit more, especially regarding whether all mismatched pairs are used or a sampled subset.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No derivation-level circularity; one admitted pretraining/test leakage compromises full independence of the held-out evaluation.

specific steps
  1. other [Appendix A.1 (Limitations); §2.6.1 Train and Test Split]
    "One limitation of our 7T pretraining procedure is that the images used for pretraining were interleaved with some of the images that were later (in a separate session) used for testing. Due to the temporal lag of the BOLD response, this could have led to a minor form of data leakage, whereby the neural response to the test images affects the beta maps for images presented after them during pretraining"

    This is not classic derivation circularity (no equation reduces a prediction to a fit), but it is an evaluation-independence leak: the 'held-out' test images' BOLD activity may have entered the construction of pretraining beta maps via temporally overlapping responses. The headline claim of decoding 'seen images from fMRI at single-trial resolution in real-time' is supported by retrieval/reconstruction scores on these same test images, so part of the support is self-referential: the model's training inputs contained neural information from the test trials. The authors argue the inflation is minor because CLIP labels for the test images were withheld, but the mechanism is real, admitted, and load-bearing for the 'held-out' framing.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical engineering/decoding study rather than a derivation, so the classic circularity patterns (self-definitional identities, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, ansatz smuggled via citation) do not apply. The training/test logic is: pretrain MindEye2 on 7 NSD subjects, fine-tune on ~1 hour of new 3T data, then evaluate on a separate session with a fixed 50-image test set. This chain is externally checkable: MindEye2 and RT-Cloud are public code/models, and the authors replicate the main pattern on the held-out NSD subj01 and include a no-pretraining control. Self-citations to MindEye2, RT-Cloud, and GLMsingle are therefore real evidence rather than circularity. The one flagged item is the authors' own admission in Appendix A.1 that 7T pretraining images were interleaved with later test images, so test-image BOLD responses may have bled into pretraining beta maps. This is an independence leak, not an equation-level reduction, but because the central claim rests on above-chance scores from this test set, it is load-bearing enough to raise the score to 3. Separately, the live RT session contributes latency while accuracy numbers come from simulated replay; that is a support gap, not circularity. Overall: no self-definitional or fitted-input-as-prediction circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim imports MindEye2, CLIP, GLM, and NSD pretraining from prior work. The new contributions add several hand-chosen delays and thresholds, and assume away a known data leakage. No new latent entities or physical objects are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • Reliability threshold r = 0.2
    Voxel reliability threshold set to r>0.2 because it 'improved performance in some preliminary data' (Section 2.6.2).
  • Fast stimulus delay = ~7.9 s
    BOLD wait time chosen because 'preliminary explorations demonstrated that a lower amount of time is insufficient for decoding' (Section 2.4).
  • Slow stimulus delay = ~29 s
    Intermediate point asserted to optimize the delay/performance trade-off (Section 2.4, Figure 4a).
  • Shared-subject latent dimensionality = 1024
    Reduced from MindEye2's 4096 to speed training and inference; an architecture choice without independent justification (Section 2.5).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption BOLD response can be modeled as a linear time-invariant system convolved with an HRF, and single-trial betas from a GLM capture stimulus-specific information.
    Used throughout for real-time GLM fitting and response estimation (Sections 2.3.2 and 2.4).
  • domain assumption CLIP embedding space is a meaningful target space: visual-semantic similarity in CLIP corresponds to perceptual similarity, and fMRI-to-CLIP mapping generalizes across participants.
    Core of MindEye2 reconstruction and retrieval (Sections 2.5 and 4.2).
  • domain assumption A model pretrained on 7 NSD subjects can be adapted to a new participant with about one hour of fine-tuning data.
    Central to the low-data claim (Section 2.6).
  • domain assumption The reliability mask (r>0.2) plus the nsdgeneral ROI defines the set of informative voxels.
    Input selection for the model (Section 2.6.2).
  • ad hoc to paper The pretraining/test interleaving leak is minor and does not materially inflate results.
    Explicitly assumed in Appendix A.1; this is the weakest assumption and is load-bearing for the evaluation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26710 in / 10650 out tokens · 99173 ms · 2026-08-01T07:32:47.405141+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Real-time closed-loop neurofeedback based on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has led to important scientific and clinical advances. However, the sophistication of the analysis methods used in real-time fMRI lags behind the state-of-the-art in fMRI decoding, largely due to computational factors: Most advanced decoding pipelines do not fit within the envelope of real-time processing, where the analysis needs to be conducted in a matter of seconds and without leveraging data acquired later in the session. Here, we present a real-time compatible adaptation of a computationally intensive state-of-the-art pipeline for reconstructing perceived natural images (MindEye2), and we demonstrate that reliable fine-grained decoding is still achievable in this setting. Using RT-Cloud, an open-source, scalable cloud-based platform, we performed a real-time scan where we decoded single-trial visual perception within seconds after an image was shown to the participant. Finally, we use simulated analyses to document the factors driving changes in performance from offline to real-time analysis. This work serves as a proof-of-concept that it is feasible to deploy these powerful fMRI decoding pipelines in real-time analysis, paving the way for their use in brain-computer interfaces for scientific discovery and clinical treatment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22753 by Akash Bhowmick, Amaar Chughtai, Anish Mahishi, Cesar Kadir Torrico Villanueva, Elizabeth A. McDevitt, Ernest W. Lo, Hritik Arasu, Jacob S. Prince, Jiaxin Cindy Tu, Kenneth A. Norman, Paul S. Scotti, Rishab S. Iyer, Ross P. Kempner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Real-time fMRI-to-image decoding pipeline. The participant views an image in the scanner; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hand-picked example reconstructions for different configurations in 3T. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Aggregated evaluation metrics for 3T offline and real-time pipelines. Scores are min-max [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relationships between stimulus delay, decoding performance, and retrieval pool size. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hand-picked example reconstructions for different configurations on NSD subject 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance (averaged across reconstruction/retrieval metrics listed in Table 1) across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evaluation metrics versus training data for the 3T subject. The model is fine-tuned with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evaluation metrics versus training data for NSD subj01. The model is fine-tuned with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized evaluation metrics for 3T offline and real-time pipelines. Scores are min-max [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Randomly selected reconstructions for different configurations using 3T data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Randomly selected reconstructions for different configurations in the 3T subject, using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision.arXiv, February 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agar- wal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision.arXiv, February 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2103.00020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 2021

  2. [2]

    Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. https://cdn.openai.com/better-language- models/language_models_are_unsupervised_multitask_learners.pdf, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding.arXiv, May 2019

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding.arXiv, May 2019. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 2019

  4. [4]

    LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models.arXiv, February 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timo- thée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models.arXiv, February 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 2023

  5. [5]

    High-resolution image reconstruction with latent diffusion models from human brain activity

    Yu Takagi and Shinji Nishimoto. High-resolution image reconstruction with latent diffusion models from human brain activity. In2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 14453–14463, June 2023. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52729.2023. 01389

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Through their eyes: Multi-subject brain decoding with simple alignment techniques.Imaging Neuroscience, 2:imag–2–00170, May 2024

    Matteo Ferrante, Tommaso Boccato, Furkan Ozcelik, Rufin VanRullen, and Nicola Toschi. Through their eyes: Multi-subject brain decoding with simple alignment techniques.Imaging Neuroscience, 2:imag–2–00170, May 2024. ISSN 2837-6056. doi: 10.1162/imag_a_00170

    doi:10.1162/imag_a_00170 2024

  7. [7]

    Reconstruction of Perceived Images from fMRI Patterns and Semantic Brain Exploration using Instance-Conditioned GANs

    Furkan Ozcelik, Bhavin Choksi, Milad Mozafari, Leila Reddy, and Rufin VanRullen. Re- construction of Perceived Images from fMRI Patterns and Semantic Brain Exploration using Instance-Conditioned GANs.arXiv, February 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.12692

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.12692 2022

  8. [8]

    Natural scene reconstruction from fMRI signals using generative latent diffusion.Scientific Reports, 13(1):15666, September 2023

    Furkan Ozcelik and Rufin VanRullen. Natural scene reconstruction from fMRI signals using generative latent diffusion.Scientific Reports, 13(1):15666, September 2023. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42891-8

    doi:10.1038/s41598-023-42891-8 2023

  9. [9]

    Reconstructing the Mind's Eye: fMRI-to-Image with Contrastive Learning and Diffusion Priors

    Paul S. Scotti, Atmadeep Banerjee, Jimmie Goode, Stepan Shabalin, Alex Nguyen, Ethan Cohen, Aidan J. Dempster, Nathalie Verlinde, Elad Yundler, David Weisberg, Kenneth A. Norman, and Tanishq Mathew Abraham. Reconstructing the Mind’s Eye: fMRI-to-Image with Contrastive Learning and Diffusion Priors.arXiv, October 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.18274

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.18274 2023

  10. [10]

    Scotti, Mihir Tripathy, Cesar Kadir Torrico Villanueva, Reese Kneeland, Tong Chen, Ashutosh Narang, Charan Santhirasegaran, Jonathan Xu, Thomas Naselaris, Kenneth A

    Paul S. Scotti, Mihir Tripathy, Cesar Kadir Torrico Villanueva, Reese Kneeland, Tong Chen, Ashutosh Narang, Charan Santhirasegaran, Jonathan Xu, Thomas Naselaris, Kenneth A. Nor- man, and Tanishq Mathew Abraham. MindEye2: Shared-Subject Models Enable fMRI-To- Image With 1 Hour of Data.arXiv, June 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.11207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.11207 2024

  11. [11]

    MindTuner: Cross-Subject Visual Decoding with Visual Fingerprint and Semantic Correction

    Zixuan Gong, Qi Zhang, Guangyin Bao, Lei Zhu, Ke Liu, Liang Hu, and Duoqian Miao. MindTuner: Cross-Subject Visual Decoding with Visual Fingerprint and Semantic Correction. arXiv, December 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.12630

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.12630 2024

  12. [12]

    NSD-Imagery: A benchmark dataset for extending fMRI vision decoding methods to mental imagery

    Reese Kneeland, Paul S. Scotti, Ghislain St-Yves, Jesse Breedlove, Kendrick Kay, and Thomas Naselaris. NSD-Imagery: A benchmark dataset for extending fMRI vision decoding methods to mental imagery.arXiv, June 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.06898

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.06898 2025

  13. [13]

    Jerry Tang, Amanda LeBel, Shailee Jain, and Alexander G. Huth. Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings.Nature Neuroscience, 26(5):858–866, May 2023. ISSN 1546-1726. doi: 10.1038/s41593-023-01304-9

    doi:10.1038/s41593-023-01304-9 2023

  14. [14]

    Closed-loop brain training: The science of neurofeedback.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(2):86–100, February 2017

    Ranganatha Sitaram, Tomas Ros, Luke Stoeckel, Sven Haller, Frank Scharnowski, Jarrod Lewis- Peacock, Nikolaus Weiskopf, Maria Laura Blefari, Mohit Rana, Ethan Oblak, Niels Birbaumer, and James Sulzer. Closed-loop brain training: The science of neurofeedback.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(2):86–100, February 2017. ISSN 1471-0048. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.164

    doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.164 2017

  15. [15]

    Batista, Matthew A

    Asma Motiwala, Joana Soldado-Magraner, Aaron P. Batista, Matthew A. Smith, and Byron M. Yu. Brain–computer interfaces as a causal probe for scientific inquiry.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 30(1):40–53, January 2026. ISSN 13646613. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2025.06.017. 12

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2025.06.017 2026

  16. [16]

    Young, Greg J

    Kymberly D. Young, Greg J. Siegle, Vadim Zotev, Raquel Phillips, Masaya Misaki, Han Yuan, Wayne C. Drevets, and Jerzy Bodurka. Randomized Clinical Trial of Real-Time fMRI Amygdala Neurofeedback for Major Depressive Disorder: Effects on Symptoms and Autobiographical Memory Recall.The American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(8):748–755, August 2017. ISSN 1535-72...

    arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Mennen, Nicholas B

    Anne C. Mennen, Nicholas B. Turk-Browne, Grant Wallace, Darsol Seok, Adna Jaganjac, Janet Stock, Megan T. deBettencourt, Jonathan D. Cohen, Kenneth A. Norman, and Yvette I. Sheline. Cloud-Based Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neurofeedback to Reduce the Negative Attentional Bias in Depression: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Biological Psychiatry: Cognitiv...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.10.006 2021

  18. [18]

    Wammes, Alex Nguyen, Coraline Rinn Iordan, Kenneth A

    Kailong Peng, Jeffrey D. Wammes, Alex Nguyen, Coraline Rinn Iordan, Kenneth A. Norman, and Nicholas B. Turk-Browne. Inducing representational change in the hippocampus through real-time neurofeedback.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 379(1915):20230091, October 2024. ISSN 0962-8436. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0091

    arXiv 1915

  19. [19]

    Brooks, Anne C

    Grant Wallace, Stephen Polcyn, Paula P. Brooks, Anne C. Mennen, Ke Zhao, Paul S. Scotti, Sebastian Michelmann, Kai Li, Nicholas B. Turk-Browne, Jonathan D. Cohen, and Kenneth A. Norman. RT-Cloud: A cloud-based software framework to simplify and standardize real-time fMRI.NeuroImage, 257:119295, August 2022. ISSN 1053-8119. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage. 2022.119295

    arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Allen, Ghislain St-Yves, Yihan Wu, Jesse L

    Emily J. Allen, Ghislain St-Yves, Yihan Wu, Jesse L. Breedlove, Jacob S. Prince, Logan T. Dow- dle, Matthias Nau, Brad Caron, Franco Pestilli, Ian Charest, J. Benjamin Hutchinson, Thomas Naselaris, and Kendrick Kay. A massive 7T fMRI dataset to bridge cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence.Nature Neuroscience, 25(1):116–126, January 2022. ISSN...

    doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00962-x 2022

  21. [21]

    Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context.arXiv, February 2015. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1405.0312

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1405.0312 2015

  22. [22]

    Favila, Ghootae Kim, Robert J

    Guo Wanjia, Serra E. Favila, Ghootae Kim, Robert J. Molitor, and Brice A. Kuhl. Abrupt hippocampal remapping signals resolution of memory interference.Nature Communications, 12(1):4816, August 2021. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25126-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25126-0 2021

  23. [23]

    A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks.arXiv, March 2019

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks.arXiv, March 2019. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.04948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.04948 2019

  24. [24]

    Improving the accuracy of single-trial fMRI response estimates using GLMsingle.eLife, 11:e77599, November 2022

    Jacob S Prince, Ian Charest, Jan W Kurzawski, John A Pyles, Michael J Tarr, and Kendrick N Kay. Improving the accuracy of single-trial fMRI response estimates using GLMsingle.eLife, 11:e77599, November 2022. ISSN 2050-084X. doi: 10.7554/eLife.77599

    doi:10.7554/elife.77599 2022

  25. [25]

    Beckmann, Timothy E

    Mark Jenkinson, Christian F. Beckmann, Timothy E. J. Behrens, Mark W. Woolrich, and Stephen M. Smith. FSL.NeuroImage, 62(2):782–790, August 2012. ISSN 1053-8119. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015

    doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015 2012

  26. [26]

    Nilearn contributors, Ahmad Chamma, Aina Frau-Pascual, Alex Rothberg, Alexandre Abadie, Alexandre Abraham, Alexandre Gramfort, Alexandre Savio, Alexandre Cionca, Alexandre Sayal, Alexis Thual, Alisha Kodibagkar, Amadeus Kanaan, Ana Luisa Pinho, Anand Joshi, Andrés Hoyos Idrobo, Anne-Sophie Kieslinger, Anupriya Kumari, Ariel Rokem, Arthur Mensch, Aswin Vij...

    2024

  27. [28]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(85):2825–2830, 2011

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vander- plas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Édouard Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.Journal of Machine Learning Resear...

    2011

  28. [29]

    Mumford, Benjamin O

    Jeanette A. Mumford, Benjamin O. Turner, F. Gregory Ashby, and Russell A. Poldrack. Deconvolving BOLD activation in event-related designs for multivoxel pattern classifica- tion analyses.Neuroimage, 59(3):2636–2643, February 2012. ISSN 1053-8119. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.076

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.076 2012

  29. [30]

    Linear Methods for Regression

    Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. Linear Methods for Regression. In Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman, editors,The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, pages 43–99. Springer, New York, NY , 2009. ISBN 978-0-387-84858-7. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7_3 2009

  30. [31]

    SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesis.arXiv, July 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesis.arXiv, July 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.01952

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.01952 2023

  31. [32]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4):600–612, April 2004. ISSN 1057-7149, 1941-0042. doi: 10.1109/TIP.2003.819861

    arXiv 2004

  32. [33]

    Mingxing Tan and Quoc V . Le. EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks.arXiv, September 2020. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1905.11946

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.11946 2020

  33. [34]

    Unsupervised Learning of Visual Features by Contrasting Cluster Assignments.arXiv, January

    Mathilde Caron, Ishan Misra, Julien Mairal, Priya Goyal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Unsupervised Learning of Visual Features by Contrasting Cluster Assignments.arXiv, January

  34. [35]

    ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012

    2012

  35. [36]

    Rethink- ing the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision

    Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethink- ing the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. In2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2818–2826, Las Vegas, NV , USA, June 2016. IEEE. ISBN 978-1-4673-8851-1. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.308

    doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.308 2016

  36. [37]

    Brain decoding: Toward real-time reconstruction of visual perception.arXiv, March 2024

    Yohann Benchetrit, Hubert Banville, and Jean-Rémi King. Brain decoding: Toward real-time reconstruction of visual perception.arXiv, March 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.19812

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.19812 2024

  37. [38]

    ENIGMA: A Unified Lightweight EEG-to-Image Model for Multi- 14 Subject Visual Decoding

    Reese Kneeland, Wangshu Jiang, Ugo Bruzadin Nunes, Si Kai Lee, Paul Steven Scotti, Arnaud Delorme, and Jonathan Xu. ENIGMA: A Unified Lightweight EEG-to-Image Model for Multi- 14 Subject Visual Decoding. InNeurIPS 2025 Workshop on Foundation Models for the Brain and Body, October 2025

    2025

  38. [39]

    Brain-IT: Image Reconstruction from fMRI via Brain-Interaction Transformer.arXiv, October 2025

    Roman Beliy, Amit Zalcher, Jonathan Kogman, Navve Wasserman, and Michal Irani. Brain-IT: Image Reconstruction from fMRI via Brain-Interaction Transformer.arXiv, October 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25976

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25976 2025

  39. [40]

    Neurofeedback through the lens of reinforcement learning.Trends in Neurosciences, 45(8):579–593, August 2022

    Nitzan Lubianiker, Christian Paret, Peter Dayan, and Talma Hendler. Neurofeedback through the lens of reinforcement learning.Trends in Neurosciences, 45(8):579–593, August 2022. ISSN 0166-2236. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2022.03.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tins.2022.03.008 2022

  40. [41]

    Van Dam, Sunjeev K

    Saampras Ganesan, Nicholas T. Van Dam, Sunjeev K. Kamboj, Aki Tsuchiyagaito, Matthew D. Sacchet, Masaya Misaki, Bradford A. Moffat, Valentina Lorenzetti, and Andrew Zalesky. Neurofeedback Training Facilitates Awareness and Enhances Emotional Well-being Associated with Real-World Meditation Practice: A 7-T MRI Study.Mindfulness, 16(10):2787–2807, 2025. ISS...

    work page doi:10.1007/s12671-025-02671-z 2025

  41. [42]

    Upregulation of reward mesolimbic activity and immune response to vaccination: A randomized controlled trial.Nature Medicine, 32(2):572–581, February 2026

    Nitzan Lubianiker, Tamar Koren, Meshi Djerasi, Margarita Sirotkin, Neomi Singer, Itamar Jalon, Avigail Lerner, Roi Sar-el, Haggai Sharon, Moni Shahar, Hilla Azulay-Debby, Asya Rolls, and Talma Hendler. Upregulation of reward mesolimbic activity and immune response to vaccination: A randomized controlled trial.Nature Medicine, 32(2):572–581, February 2026....

    work page doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04140-5 2026

  42. [43]

    Oblak, Jarrod A

    Ethan F. Oblak, Jarrod A. Lewis-Peacock, and James S. Sulzer. Self-regulation strategy, feedback timing and hemodynamic properties modulate learning in a simulated fMRI neurofeedback environment.PLOS Computational Biology, 13(7):e1005681, July 2017. ISSN 1553-7358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005681

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005681 2017

  43. [44]

    Busch, E

    Erica L. Busch, E. Chandra Fincke, Guillaume Lajoie, Smita Krishnaswamy, and Nicholas B. Turk-Browne. Human learning of noninvasive brain–computer interfaces via manifold ge- ometry.Nature Neuroscience, pages 1–9, June 2026. ISSN 1546-1726. doi: 10.1038/ s41593-026-02311-2

    2026

  44. [45]

    Scaling laws for decoding images from brain activity.arXiv, January 2025

    Hubert Banville, Yohann Benchetrit, Stéphane d’Ascoli, Jérémy Rapin, and Jean-Rémi King. Scaling laws for decoding images from brain activity.arXiv, January 2025. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2501.15322

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.15322 2025

  45. [46]

    Adaptive stimulus optimization for sensory systems neuroscience.Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 7:101, June 2013

    Christopher DiMattina and Kechen Zhang. Adaptive stimulus optimization for sensory systems neuroscience.Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 7:101, June 2013. ISSN 1662-5110. doi: 10.3389/ fncir.2013.00101

    arXiv 2013

  46. [47]

    Adaptive stimulus selection for optimizing neural population responses

    Benjamin Cowley, Ryan Williamson, Katerina Clemens, Matthew Smith, and Byron M Yu. Adaptive stimulus selection for optimizing neural population responses. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

    2017

  47. [48]

    Ashwood, and Jonathan W

    Aditi Jha, Zoe C. Ashwood, and Jonathan W. Pillow. Active Learning for Discrete Latent Variable Models.Neural computation, 36(3):437–474, February 2024. ISSN 0899-7667. doi: 10.1162/neco_a_01646

    work page doi:10.1162/neco_a_01646 2024

  48. [49]

    Dynadiff: Single-stage Decoding of Images from Continuously Evolving fMRI.arXiv, May 2025

    Marlène Careil, Yohann Benchetrit, and Jean-Rémi King. Dynadiff: Single-stage Decoding of Images from Continuously Evolving fMRI.arXiv, May 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14556

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.14556 2025

  49. [50]

    Rizvi, Matteo Rosati, Christopher Averill, James L

    Josue Ortega Caro, Antonio Henrique de Oliveira Fonseca, Syed A. Rizvi, Matteo Rosati, Christopher Averill, James L. Cross, Prateek Mittal, Emanuele Zappala, Rahul Madhav Dho- dapkar, Chadi Abdallah, and David van Dijk. BrainLM: A foundation model for brain activity recordings. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, October 2023

    2023

  50. [51]

    SwiFT: Swin 4D fMRI Transformer.arXiv, October 2023

    Peter Yongho Kim, Junbeom Kwon, Sunghwan Joo, Sangyoon Bae, Donggyu Lee, Yoonho Jung, Shinjae Yoo, Jiook Cha, and Taesup Moon. SwiFT: Swin 4D fMRI Transformer.arXiv, October 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.05916

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.05916 2023

  51. [52]

    Brain-JEPA: Brain Dynamics Foundation Model with Gradient Positioning and Spatiotemporal Masking.arXiv, September 2024

    Zijian Dong, Ruilin Li, Yilei Wu, Thuan Tinh Nguyen, Joanna Su Xian Chong, Fang Ji, Nathanael Ren Jie Tong, Christopher Li Hsian Chen, and Juan Helen Zhou. Brain-JEPA: Brain Dynamics Foundation Model with Gradient Positioning and Spatiotemporal Masking.arXiv, September 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.19407 2024

  52. [53]

    Zijian Dong, Ruilin Li, Joanna Su Xian Chong, Niousha Dehestani, Yinghui Teng, Yi Lin, Zhizhou Li, Yichi Zhang, Yapei Xie, Leon Qi Rong Ooi, B. T. Thomas Yeo, and Juan Helen 15 Zhou. Brain Harmony: A Multimodal Foundation Model Unifying Morphology and Function into 1D Tokens.arXiv, September 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.24693

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24693 2025

  53. [54]

    Brain-Semantoks: Learning Semantic Tokens of Brain Dynamics with a Self-Distilled Foundation Model.arXiv, March 2026

    Sam Gijsen, Marc-Andre Schulz, and Kerstin Ritter. Brain-Semantoks: Learning Semantic Tokens of Brain Dynamics with a Self-Distilled Foundation Model.arXiv, March 2026. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11582

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.11582 2026

  54. [55]

    Kaplan, Benjamin Warner, Tanishq Mathew Abraham, and Paul S

    Connor Lane, Mihir Tripathy, Leema Krishna Murali, Ratna Sagari Grandhi, Shamus Sim Zi Yang, Sam Gijsen, Debojyoti Das, Manish Ram, Utkarsh Kumar Singh, Cesar Kadir Torrico Villanueva, Yuxiang Wei, Will Beddow, Gianfranco Cortés, Suin Cho, Daniel Z. Kaplan, Benjamin Warner, Tanishq Mathew Abraham, and Paul S. Scotti. Scaling Vision Transformers for Functi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13768 2026

  55. [56]

    Nachimuthu, Michael Jacob Mendelson, Blake Aaron Richards, Matthew G

    Mehdi Azabou, Vinam Arora, Venkataramana Ganesh, Ximeng Mao, Santosh B. Nachimuthu, Michael Jacob Mendelson, Blake Aaron Richards, Matthew G. Perich, Guillaume Lajoie, and Eva L. Dyer. A Unified, Scalable Framework for Neural Population Decoding. InThirty-Seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, November 2023

    2023

  56. [57]

    Neural Encoding and Decoding at Scale.arXiv, May 2025

    Yizi Zhang, Yanchen Wang, Mehdi Azabou, Alexandre Andre, Zixuan Wang, Hanrui Lyu, The International Brain Laboratory, Eva Dyer, Liam Paninski, and Cole Hurwitz. Neural Encoding and Decoding at Scale.arXiv, May 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.08201 2025

  57. [58]

    Krishna, Ximeng Mao, Mehdi Azabou, Eva L

    Avery Hee-Woon Ryoo, Nanda H. Krishna, Ximeng Mao, Mehdi Azabou, Eva L. Dyer, Matthew G. Perich, and Guillaume Lajoie. Generalizable, real-time neural decoding with hybrid state-space models.arXiv, November 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05320

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.05320 2025

  58. [59]

    Harris, K

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, Robert Kern, Matti Picus, Stephan Hoyer, Marten H. van Kerkwijk, Matthew Brett, Allan Haldane, Jaime Fer- nández del Río, Mark Wiebe, Pearu Peterson, Pierre Gérard-Marchant, Kevin She...

    2020

  59. [60]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, Eric Jones, Robert Kern, Eric Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙Ilhan Polat, Yu Feng, Eric W....

    2020

  60. [61]

    John D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment.Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3):90–95, May 2007. ISSN 1558-366X. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  61. [62]

    Pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas

    The pandas development team. Pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas. Zenodo, February 2020

    2020

  62. [63]

    Transformers: State-of-the- Art Natural Language Processing

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. Transformers: State-of-the- Art N...

    2020

  63. [64]

    PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High- Performance Deep Learning Library.arXiv, December 2019

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Yang, Zach DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High- Perform...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.01703 2019

  64. [65]

    Markiewicz, Michael Hanke, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Ben Cipollini, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos, Paul McCarthy, Dorota Jarecka, Christopher P

    Matthew Brett, Christopher J. Markiewicz, Michael Hanke, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Ben Cipollini, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos, Paul McCarthy, Dorota Jarecka, Christopher P. Cheng, Eric Larson, Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Michiel Cottaar, Satrajit Ghosh, Demian Wassermann, Stephan Gerhard, Gregory R. Lee, Zvi Baratz, Brendan Moloney, Hao-Ting Wang, Erik Kastman, 16...

    2025

  65. [66]

    Pels, Erik J

    Elmar G.M. Pels, Erik J. Aarnoutse, Sacha Leinders, Zac V . Freudenburg, Mariana P. Branco, Benny H. van der Vijgh, Tom J. Snijders, Timothy Denison, Mariska J. Vansteensel, and Nick F. Ramsey. Stability of a chronic implanted brain-computer interface in late-stage amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Clinical Neurophysiology, 130(10):1798–1803, October 2019. ISSN 1388-

    2019

  66. [67]

    Davis, Kimberley R

    Kevin C. Davis, Kimberley R. Wyse-Sookoo, Fouzia Raza, Benyamin Meschede-Krasa, Noe- line W. Prins, Letitia Fisher, Emery N. Brown, Iahn Cajigas, Michael E. Ivan, Jonathan R. Jagid, and Abhishek Prasad. 5-Year Follow-up of a Fully Implanted Brain-Computer Interface in A Spinal Cord Injury Patient.Journal of neural engineering, 22(2):10.1088/1741–2552/adc4...

    doi:10.1088/1741 2025

  67. [68]

    Peter Mitchell, Sarah C. M. Lee, Peter E. Yoo, Andrew Morokoff, Rahul P. Sharma, Daryl L. Williams, Christopher MacIsaac, Mark E. Howard, Lou Irving, Ivan Vrljic, Cameron Williams, Steven Bush, Anna H. Balabanski, Katharine J. Drummond, Patricia Desmond, Douglas Weber, Timothy Denison, Susan Mathers, Terence J. O’Brien, J. Mocco, David B. Grayden, David S...

    arXiv 2023

  68. [69]

    Aoki, Kei Majima, Yusuke Muraki, and Yukiyasu Kamitani

    Ken Shirakawa, Yoshihiro Nagano, Misato Tanaka, Shuntaro C. Aoki, Kei Majima, Yusuke Muraki, and Yukiyasu Kamitani. Spurious reconstruction from brain activity.arXiv, May 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.10078 2025

  69. [70]

    The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research

    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the- belmont-report/index.html, 1979

    1979

  70. [71]

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale.arXiv, June 2021

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale.arXiv, June 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2010.11929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.11929 2021

  71. [72]

    Adversarial Diffusion Distillation

    Axel Sauer, Dominik Lorenz, Andreas Blattmann, and Robin Rombach. Adversarial Diffusion Distillation. In Aleš Leonardis, Elisa Ricci, Stefan Roth, Olga Russakovsky, Torsten Sattler, and Gül Varol, editors,Computer Vision – ECCV 2024, volume 15144, pages 87–103. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2025. ISBN 978-3-031-73015-3 978-3-031-73016-0. doi: 10.1007...

    2024

  72. [73]

    Huettel, Allen W

    Scott A. Huettel, Allen W. Song, and Gregory McCarthy.Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass, 2004. ISBN 978-0-87893-288-7 978-0-87893- 289-4

    2004

  73. [74]

    Johnson, Alexandre Sayal, jstaph, JohannesWiesner, Jon Clucas, Tinashe Michael Tapera, and justbennet

    Andrew Jahn, Dan Levitas, Eric Holscher, John T. Johnson, Alexandre Sayal, jstaph, JohannesWiesner, Jon Clucas, Tinashe Michael Tapera, and justbennet. Andrew- jahn/AndysBrainBook:. Zenodo, January 2022. 17

    2022

  74. [75]

    fMRIPrep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI.Nature Methods, 16:111–116, 2019

    Oscar Esteban, Christopher Markiewicz, Ross W Blair, Craig Moodie, Ayse Ilkay Isik, Asier Erramuzpe Aliaga, James Kent, Mathias Goncalves, Elizabeth DuPre, Madeleine Snyder, Hi- royuki Oya, Satrajit Ghosh, Jessey Wright, Joke Durnez, Russell Poldrack, and Krzysztof Jacek Gorgolewski. fMRIPrep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI.Nature Meth...

    doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0235-4 2019

  75. [76]

    Markiewicz, Shoshana L

    Oscar Esteban, Ross Blair, Christopher J. Markiewicz, Shoshana L. Berleant, Craig Moodie, Feilong Ma, Ayse Ilkay Isik, Asier Erramuzpe, James D. Kent, Mathias Goncalves, Elizabeth DuPre, Kevin R. Sitek, Daniel E. P. Gomez, Daniel J. Lurie, Zhifang Ye, Russell A. Poldrack, and Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski. fmriprep.Software, 2018. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.852659

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.852659 2018

  76. [77]

    Gorgolewski, C

    K. Gorgolewski, C. D. Burns, C. Madison, D. Clark, Y . O. Halchenko, M. L. Waskom, and S. Ghosh. Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing frame- work in python.Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 5:13, 2011. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2011.00013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  77. [78]

    Gorgolewski, Oscar Esteban, Christopher J

    Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski, Oscar Esteban, Christopher J. Markiewicz, Erik Ziegler, David Gage Ellis, Michael Philipp Notter, Dorota Jarecka, Hans Johnson, Christopher Burns, Alexandre Manhães-Savio, Carlo Hamalainen, Benjamin Yvernault, Taylor Salo, Kesshi Jordan, Mathias Goncalves, Michael Waskom, Daniel Clark, Jason Wong, Fred Loney, Marc Modat, Blake E ...

    2018

  78. [79]

    Andersson, Stefan Skare, and John Ashburner

    Jesper L.R. Andersson, Stefan Skare, and John Ashburner. How to correct susceptibility distortions in spin-echo echo-planar images: application to diffusion tensor imaging.NeuroIm- age, 20(2):870–888, 2003. ISSN 1053-8119. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00336-7. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811903003367

    doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00336-7 2003

  79. [80]

    N. J. Tustison, B. B. Avants, P. A. Cook, Y . Zheng, A. Egan, P. A. Yushkevich, and J. C. Gee. N4itk: Improved n3 bias correction.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 29(6):1310–1320,

  80. [81]

    Avants, C.L

    B.B. Avants, C.L. Epstein, M. Grossman, and J.C. Gee. Symmetric diffeomorphic im- age registration with cross-correlation: Evaluating automated labeling of elderly and neu- rodegenerative brain.Medical Image Analysis, 12(1):26–41, 2008. ISSN 1361-8415. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2007.06.004. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1361841507000606

    doi:10.1016/j.media.2007.06.004 2008

Showing first 80 references.