Uncovering the EEG Temporal Representation of Low-dimensional Object Properties

Chen Wei; Jiachen Zou; Jiahua Tang; Quanying Liu; Song Wang

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Uncovering the EEG Temporal Representation of Low-dimensional Object Properties

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that EEG temporal masking reveals when and in what order the brain encodes low-dimensional object properties, identifying early visual, integrative, and late semantic stages.

desk verdict A cleanly described masking pipeline for EEG concept timing, but the central temporal-specificity claim is under-supported without a null baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14537 v1 pith:JFDUNYNZ submitted 2025-07-19 cs.HC

Jiahua Tang , Song Wang , Jiachen Zou , Chen Wei , Quanying Liu This is my paper

classification cs.HC

keywords EEGtemporalmaskingconceptrepresentationlow-dimensionalobjectpropertiesneuraldecodingdynamictimewarpinghierarchicalclusteringbrain-computerinterface

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

This paper tries to establish that the brain's encoding of low-dimensional object properties can be tracked in time with EEG. The authors mask successive 50-timepoint windows in the EEG signal, re-encode the masked signal, and measure how much the predicted concept embedding changes; a large change marks the moment that concept is being processed. They report that different object concepts show distinct temporal activation curves, that these curves follow a sequential order, and that clustering them yields stages resembling early visual processing, multi-feature integration, and late semantic representation. If correct, this gives EEG a role in concept localization that complements fMRI's spatial maps.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the temporal masking curve: for each concept and each start time $t_k$, a 50-timepoint segment of the multichannel EEG is zeroed, the masked signal is passed through the EEG encoder, a ridge regression predicts the concept embedding, and the Pearson correlation $\rho(t_k, L)$ between original and predicted embeddings quantifies how much that time window matters. A dip in $\rho$ marks a critical window for the concept. Dynamic time warping then measures the shape similarity of these curves across concepts, and hierarchical clustering groups the 42 concepts into prototypical temporal schemas.

What would settle it

Train the identical pipeline on the same EEG signals with image identities randomly permuted before fitting the concept-mapping regression; if the temporal masking curves still show the same concept-specific ordering and clusters, the curves are driven by encoder or data statistics rather than by concept representation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that low-dimensional object properties are not uniformly distributed across the EEG timecourse. Each concept has a characteristic window or windows during which masking the signal most degrades the predicted concept embedding, so concepts can be ordered chronologically. The paper further reports that these temporal profiles cluster into a small number of prototypical shapes, which it interprets as hierarchical neural processing stages. Across the ten subjects, a two-phase pattern (an early window near mask starts 0 to 25 and a later window near 30 to 60) is consistent, although individual peak times vary.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a drop in the correlation between unmasked and masked concept embeddings reflects the brain's own representation of that concept at the masked time window, rather than an artifact of the particular encoding models or regression mapping used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

EEG can be used to order concept processing chronologically, adding temporal specificity that fMRI spatial maps lack.
The identified early visual, integrative, and late semantic windows imply a staged neural hierarchy for object properties.
Concept-specific timing differences mean EEG decoding models should use time-resolved features rather than treating the whole epoch as one block.
Inter-subject temporal variability suggests that personalized time windows may matter for brain-computer interface decoding.
New concepts can be scored by their temporal profile through the same masking pipeline without retraining, as long as they lie in the concept space.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: applying the same masking to shuffled EEG-image pairings would test whether the concept-specific order survives when image identities no longer match the signals; if it does, the curves may reflect encoder artifacts rather than neural representations.
Editorial inference: the claim that masking sensitivity equals neural relevance could be checked against independent neural measures, such as event-related potential latencies or source-imaging estimates for the same time windows.
Editorial inference: if the clustering is stable across subjects, concepts sharing a temporal cluster may share processing resources, predicting that behavioral similarity judgments should correlate with temporal-profile distances.
Editorial inference: the masking curves could transfer to naturalistic video stimuli, where concept activation could be timed against continuous behavior instead of fixed trial onsets.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper does something genuinely new—temporal masking applied to EEG concept decoding on THINGS-EEG—and the held-out-category setup for ridge regression is a real positive. But the core claim, that different concepts have distinct temporal activation patterns reflecting neural processing, is not yet supported because the masking procedure is never tested against a null baseline.

The stress-test note gets this right. The pretrained EEG encoder was trained on complete signals; feeding it a zeroed 200 ms block is out of distribution. The resulting drop in correlation could be driven by boundary effects or the encoder's sensitivity to missing input, not by loss of concept-relevant neural activity. No random-mask control, permutation test, or even error bars are reported. That is the load-bearing gap between the curves and the neuroscience conclusion.

What the paper does well: the equations are simple and internally consistent, the pipeline is reproducible in principle, and the specific empirical curves and clustering results on THINGS-EEG are not in the prior literature. The decision to measure the impact of masking via Pearson correlation between original and masked predicted embeddings is reasonable, though the text's description of the metric is confusing—it says higher rho means weaker relevance, then plots a "difference in Pearson correlation values" without pinning down the operational definition. That needs fixing. The reliance on the authors' own pretrained models (refs. 21, 22) is a minor concern, not fatal, but independent validation would strengthen the interpretation.

If the authors add a random-mask baseline and show the concept-specific timing survives it, this becomes a useful contribution. As it stands, it's a plausible pipeline with an unverified interpretation. I'd send it to peer review, because the method is coherent and the question matters, but I'd ask for controls before accepting the strong temporal-schema claims. It's also a good reading-group example of why decoder sensitivity is not identical to neural relevance.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework to uncover the temporal EEG representation of low-dimensional object properties (behavior-derived concepts) by combining a pre-trained EEG encoder, a pre-trained concept encoder, ridge regression mapping, and a temporal masking scheme. A contiguous 200 ms window of the EEG signal is zeroed, the affected embedding is mapped into concept space, and the Pearson correlation between the original and masked predicted concept embeddings is used as a measure of how much that time window contributes to the concept. The authors report that different concepts show temporally specific activation patterns, identify two periods of concentrated visual activation, and use dynamic time warping plus hierarchical clustering to group concepts into clusters they interpret as early visual, multi-feature integration, and late semantic processing. The conclusions are drawn from the THINGS-EEG dataset with held-out categories.

Significance. If the central interpretation is valid, the paper would provide a practical pipeline for localizing concept processing in EEG time, with possible value for BCI and cognitive neuroscience. The authors use a publicly available dataset, held-out categories for the ridge regression, and a transparent set of equations. The pre-trained encoders and the use of behavior-derived concept embeddings are useful ingredients, and the DTW-based clustering is a reasonable exploratory tool. However, the significance is heavily conditional: the temporal curves are deterministic functions of the fitted ridge mapping and the fixed encoder, and the leap from masking-induced correlation drops to neural relevance is not yet secured. The strengths of the manuscript are the clear experimental setup and the explicit equations, but the missing control analyses and independent validation currently prevent the central neuroscience claim from being supported.

major comments (5)

[Section III-B, Eq. (6)] The sentence 'Higher values indicate weaker relevance between the masked and original embeddings' is backwards. A higher Pearson correlation between the original and masked predicted concept embeddings means the two embeddings are more similar, so the masked segment had less impact on the prediction. The correct reading is that lower rho indicates a greater effect of masking. Since the temporal activation curves in Section IV and the clustering in Section IV-D all rely on this sign convention, the authors should correct Eq. (6)'s interpretation and re-verify that the plotted quantities ('difference in Pearson correlation values' in Fig. 4(b)) have the intended direction.
[Section III-B (Eq. 3) and Section IV-B] Zero-masking a contiguous block of EEG samples produces inputs that lie far outside the training distribution of the pre-trained EEG encoder f, which was trained on complete, unmasked signals. The observed drops in rho could therefore reflect the encoder's sensitivity to an artificial zero block, boundary discontinuities, or a general distribution shift, rather than the removal of concept-related neural activity. The manuscript reports no control condition: no random masking of equal-length windows, no permutation of concept labels, no noise-masking baseline, and no comparison with masking non-contiguous timepoints. Without such a control, the load-bearing link between the masking curves and 'temporally specific activation patterns' is not established.
[Section IV-C and IV-D] The temporal activation curves are computed from the fitted ridge mapping W and the fixed encoders via Eqs. (5)-(6), and the clustering in Section IV-D operates on these same curves. Consequently, the two 'concentrated visual activation' periods and the resulting concept clusters are properties of the authors' encoder-regression pipeline as much as of the brain; the interpretation that they reflect 'the hierarchical nature of neural processing' is not independently validated. The authors should provide a null distribution (e.g., ridge fits with shuffled labels or random concept-embedding assignments) or a direct neural validation (e.g., time-resolved decoding of concept properties from raw EEG) to show that the temporal structure survives when the mapping is unrelated to the semantic labels.
[Section IV-B] The claim that 'different concepts exhibit temporally specific activation patterns' is supported only by qualitative examples: three selected subjects, three visual stimuli, and the top-5 concepts for those images. No quantitative summary across the ten subjects and 200 test stimuli is given, no effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported, and no statistical test establishes that the ordering of activation times is consistent across subjects. The abstract and conclusion make general claims that require a systematic analysis, such as the distribution of activation latencies per concept across all subjects or a permutation test against a null of no temporal specificity.
[Section IV-D and Abstract] The clustering analysis uses a fixed number of clusters (K=5) without justification or stability assessment, and the labels 'early visual processing,' 'multi-feature integration,' and 'late semantic representation' are assigned post hoc. Moreover, the abstract's claim that this is 'the first' attempt to identify prototypical temporal characteristics of concepts in EEG is difficult to reconcile with reference [15], which the authors themselves cite for ridge regression and which studies the temporal dynamics of multidimensional object properties in the brain. The authors should compare their approach and findings with [15] explicitly, and provide a quantitative evaluation of cluster structure (e.g., silhouette scores or bootstrap stability) before drawing conclusions about brain organization.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-B and Fig. 4] Please clarify the notation used for the 'difference' plotted in Fig. 4(b): the text mentions 'the difference in Pearson correlation values (original minus masked),' but Eq. (6) already defines a correlation between original and masked embeddings. Using a quantity such as Δρ = 1 − ρ would make the direction unambiguous.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'calculate the difference in predicted concept activation values before and after masking,' while the text and Eq. (6) describe a Pearson correlation between embeddings. These formulations should be aligned.
[Section IV-A] It is not fully clear whether the EEG encoder f is fine-tuned on the THINGS-EEG training split or used as a frozen pre-trained feature extractor. The phrase 'was trained according to the parameters specified in [22]' needs to be explicit about whether the weights are frozen or adapted for this dataset.
[Section IV-D] There is a typo in 'there is a high probability of of being clustered together,' and the claim that 'clusters A through C have stronger activation values' would benefit from a definition of 'activation value' in terms of the correlation drop.
[Abstract] The statement 'We are the first to attempt to identify the specificity and prototypical temporal characteristics of concepts within temporal distributions' is a strong novelty claim. Given the existing work on temporal dynamics of object properties in EEG (e.g., reference [15]), the authors should either provide a clear differentiation or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: temporal curves are empirical decoder outputs, not fitted targets; self-cited encoders are independently validated.

full rationale

No Eq.-to-Eq. circularity is present. The temporal curves rho(tk,L) (Eq. 6) are empirical outputs of the trained EEG encoder f and ridge mapping W applied to masked inputs; the paper never fits rho directly, and the observed ordering or clustering of concept curves is not a fitted target. The method is a conventional information-probing analysis (mask a time window, measure decoder-output change), and the test categories are disjoint from the training categories, so the ridge mapping is not predicting its own training labels. The encoders from the authors' prior works [21] and [22] are load-bearing components, but they were validated on external tasks (behavior-based image generation and EEG-based visual decoding/reconstruction, respectively), so citing them is using independent evidence rather than invoking an unverified self-citation to close an argument. The main threat, that zeroing a contiguous 200 ms block takes the EEG encoder out of distribution and that the resulting drops reflect encoder artifacts rather than neural content, is a validity/correctness concern about the interpretational leap from decoder sensitivity to 'neural activation'; it is not a circular reduction of the conclusion to the inputs. The paper's limitation section (Section V) acknowledges dataset and spatial-resolution limits but does not report a random-masking or permutation control; that omission should be weighed as a correctness risk, not as circularity. Accordingly, the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction, and the score is low rather than the reader's suggested 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central pipeline consumes two pre-trained models from the authors' own prior work, a ridge regression fit to 66,160 training samples, and several hand-set hyperparameters (lambda, K, L). The scientific conclusion is obtained by interpreting the sensitivity of this fitted pipeline as neural evidence. No new entities are postulated, but the interpretative bridge is an unvalidated assumption.

free parameters (4)

Ridge regularization lambda = 0.5
Chosen following ref [15]; controls the EEG-to-concept mapping and therefore all masking curves.
Number of clusters K = 5
Set to five for hierarchical clustering in Section IV-D without a data-driven selection criterion; affects the reported cluster structure.
Mask length L = 50 timepoints
Mask length of 50 samples at 250 Hz determines temporal resolution of the activation curves; no ablation or justification is given.
Top-k concepts = 5
Only the top five most strongly activated concepts are shown in Fig. 3, which could bias the reported temporal patterns.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The pre-trained EEG encoder f from [22] produces embeddings that preserve the neural information relevant to object concepts.
The encoder is trained in prior work by the same group and is used without re-validation on the present task.
domain assumption The CoCoG concept encoder g from [21] yields 42-dimensional embeddings that faithfully summarize human concept representations.
The target space for the ridge regression is defined by this model; if the concept space is incomplete or biased, the temporal localization inherits that bias.
ad hoc to paper Sensitivity of the fitted ridge mapping to masked EEG segments reflects the brain's temporal encoding of concepts.
This is the central interpretative assumption: a drop in correlation after masking is read as neural relevance, with no control condition or independent validation. It is introduced in Section III-B and used throughout Section IV.
domain assumption The 42 behavior-derived dimensions are sufficient to capture the temporal sequence of visual-to-semantic processing.
The paper assumes these low-dimensional properties are 'widely present across all images and exhibit a temporal sequence in the brain's visual information processing' (Introduction).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncovering the EEG Temporal Representation of Low-dimensional Object Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFDUNYNZ

@misc{pith2026250714537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncovering the EEG Temporal Representation of Low-dimensional Object Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFDUNYNZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14537}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding how the human brain encodes and processes external visual stimuli has been a fundamental challenge in neuroscience. With advancements in artificial intelligence, sophisticated visual decoding architectures have achieved remarkable success in fMRI research, enabling more precise and fine-grained spatial concept localization. This has provided new tools for exploring the spatial representation of concepts in the brain. However, despite the millisecond-scale temporal resolution of EEG, which offers unparalleled advantages in tracking the dynamic evolution of cognitive processes, the temporal dynamics of neural representations based on EEG remain underexplored. This is primarily due to EEG's inherently low signal-to-noise ratio and its complex spatiotemporal coupling characteristics. To bridge this research gap, we propose a novel approach that integrates advanced neural decoding algorithms to systematically investigate how low-dimensional object properties are temporally encoded in EEG signals. We are the first to attempt to identify the specificity and prototypical temporal characteristics of concepts within temporal distributions. Our framework not only enhances the interpretability of neural representations but also provides new insights into visual decoding in brain-computer interfaces (BCI).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14537 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Motivation of our work. (Left) A visual stimulus (e.g., a teddy bear) can elicit neural responses associated with conceptual categories (e.g., ground animals, baby toys, and recreational instruments), offering insights into how the brain represents abstract concepts. (Right) EEG and fMRI are two neuroimaging techniques that can be used to record brain activities. While fMRI provides high spatial resolution, facilita… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Framework for Dynamic Concept Attribution. (Top) Training phase: The Concept and EEG encoders extract embeddings for visual stimuli and EEG signals, respectively. A ridge regression model is then trained to map the EEG representations to the latent concept space. (Bottom) Temporal Masking: EEG signals with masked time points are used to predict concept activation, which is quantified using the Pearson correlation to… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Temporal Impact of EEG Signals on Concept Activation. (a) Visual object presented to the subject. (b) For the top five concepts most strongly activated by the image, we apply temporal masking to the EEG signals at different start times and then calculate the difference in predicted concept activation values before and after masking. (c) Topographic maps of EEG signals at t = 25, 50, 75 ms. C = Cluster(D, K) (9) wher… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Impact of Temporal Masking on Concept Activation Across Subjects. (a) Averaged topographic maps of the original EEG signals, plotted at 25 ms intervals within the 0-200 ms window. (b) For each subject’s EEG signals, temporal masking is applied at different start times…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Impact of Temporal Masking on Specific Concept Activation. For four example concepts, the EEG signals corresponding to each concept are calculated for each subject and temporally masked at different start times. On the left side of each concept subplot, the difference …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Cluster Analysis of Concept Activation. (a) Hierarchical clustering from subject 9 of the 42 concepts, resulting in 5 clusters. (b) For each cluster (A–E) in subject 9, the plot shows the difference in Pearson correlation coefficients between the predicted and true act…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[15]

Dynamic representation of multidimensional object properties in the human brain,

L. Teichmann, M. N. Hebart, and C. I. Baker, “Dynamic representation of multidimensional object properties in the human brain,” bioRxiv, pp. 2023–09, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

BrainVis: Exploring the Bridge between Brain and Visual Signals via Image Reconstruction

H. Fu, Z. Shen, J. J. Chin, and H. Wang, “Brainvis: Exploring the bridge between brain and visual signals via image reconstruction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14871, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[2]

Decoding visual brain representations from electroencephalography through knowledge distillation and latent diffusion models,

M. Ferrante, T. Boccato, S. Bargione, and N. Toschi, “Decoding visual brain representations from electroencephalography through knowledge distillation and latent diffusion models,” Computers in Biology and Medicine , vol. 178, p. 108701, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482524007868

work page 2024
[3]

Visual decoding and reconstruction via eeg embeddings with guided diffusion,

D. Li, C. Wei, S. Li, J. Zou, and Q. Liu, “Visual decoding and reconstruction via eeg embeddings with guided diffusion,” in The Thirty- eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

work page
[4]

Dream: Visual decoding from reversing human visual system,

W. Xia, R. De Charette, C. Oztireli, and J.-H. Xue, “Dream: Visual decoding from reversing human visual system,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2024, pp. 8226–8235

work page 2024
[5]

Controllable mind visual diffusion model,

B. Zeng, S. Li, X. Liu, S. Gao, X. Jiang, X. Tang, Y . Hu, J. Liu, and B. Zhang, “Controllable mind visual diffusion model,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 6935–6943

work page 2024
[6]

Mindshot: Brain decoding framework using only one image,

S. Jiang, Z. Meng, D. Liu, H. Li, F. Su, and Z. Zhao, “Mindshot: Brain decoding framework using only one image,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15278

arXiv 2024
[7]

Grounding object concepts in perception and action: evidence from fmri studies of tools,

M. S. Beauchamp and A. Martin, “Grounding object concepts in perception and action: evidence from fmri studies of tools,” Cortex, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 461–468, 2007

work page 2007

Show all 30 references

[8]

The grounding of abstract concepts in the motor and visual system: An fmri study,

M. Harpaintner, E.-J. Sim, N. M. Trumpp, M. Ulrich, and M. Kiefer, “The grounding of abstract concepts in the motor and visual system: An fmri study,” Cortex, vol. 124, pp. 1–22, 2020

2020
[9]

Brain mapping with dense features: Grounding cortical semantic selectivity in natural images with vision transformers,

A. F. Luo, J. Yeung, R. Zawar, S. Dewan, M. M. Henderson, L. Wehbe, and M. J. Tarr, “Brain mapping with dense features: Grounding cortical semantic selectivity in natural images with vision transformers,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05266

2024 arXiv
[10]

Brainscuba: Fine-grained natural language captions of visual cortex selectivity,

A. F. Luo, M. M. Henderson, M. J. Tarr, and L. Wehbe, “Brainscuba: Fine-grained natural language captions of visual cortex selectivity,” in 12th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, 2024

2024
[11]

Neuro-vision to language: Enhancing brain recording-based visual reconstruction and language interaction,

G. Shen, D. Zhao, X. He, L. Feng, Y . Dong, J. Wang, Q. Zhang, and Y . Zeng, “Neuro-vision to language: Enhancing brain recording-based visual reconstruction and language interaction,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 37, pp. 98 083–98 110, 2024

2024
[12]

The role of theories in conceptual coherence

G. L. Murphy and D. L. Medin, “The role of theories in conceptual coherence.” Psychological review, vol. 92, no. 3, p. 289, 1985

1985
[13]

Respects for similarity

D. L. Medin, R. L. Goldstone, and D. Gentner, “Respects for similarity.” Psychological review, vol. 100, no. 2, p. 254, 1993

1993
[14]

Modeling similarity and psychological space,

B. D. Roads and B. C. Love, “Modeling similarity and psychological space,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 215–240, 2024

2024
[16]

Things: A database of 1,854 object concepts and more than 26,000 naturalistic object images,

M. N. Hebart, A. H. Dickter, A. Kidder, W. Y . Kwok, A. Corriveau, C. Van Wicklin, and C. I. Baker, “Things: A database of 1,854 object concepts and more than 26,000 naturalistic object images,” PloS one , vol. 14, no. 10, p. e0223792, 2019

2019
[17]

Revealing the multidimensional mental representations of natural objects underlying human similarity judgements,

M. N. Hebart, C. Y . Zheng, F. Pereira, and C. I. Baker, “Revealing the multidimensional mental representations of natural objects underlying human similarity judgements,” Nature human behaviour, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 1173–1185, 2020

2020
[18]

Revealing in- terpretable object representations from human behavior,

C. Y . Zheng, F. Pereira, C. I. Baker, and M. N. Hebart, “Revealing in- terpretable object representations from human behavior,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02915, 2019

1901 arXiv
[19]

Vice: Variational interpretable concept embed- dings,

L. Muttenthaler, C. Y . Zheng, P. McClure, R. A. Vandermeulen, M. N. Hebart, and F. Pereira, “Vice: Variational interpretable concept embed- dings,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 33 661–33 675, 2022

2022
[20]

Cocog-2: Controllable genera- tion of visual stimuli for understanding human concept representation,

C. Wei, J. Zou, D. Heinke, and Q. Liu, “Cocog-2: Controllable genera- tion of visual stimuli for understanding human concept representation,” in International Workshop on Human Brain and Artificial Intelligence . Springer, 2024, pp. 18–34

2024
[21]

Cocog: controllable visual stimuli generation based on human concept representations,

C. Wei, J. Zou, D. Heinke, and Q. Liu, “Cocog: controllable visual stimuli generation based on human concept representations,” in Pro- ceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024, pp. 3178–3186

2024
[22]

Visual decoding and reconstruction via eeg embeddings with guided diffusion,

D. Li, C. Wei, S. Li, J. Zou, H. Qin, and Q. Liu, “Visual decoding and reconstruction via eeg embeddings with guided diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07721, 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,

H. Sakoe and S. Chiba, “Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,” IEEE transactions on acoustics, speech, and signal processing , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 1978

1978
[24]

Human eeg recordings for 1,854 concepts presented in rapid serial visual presentation streams,

T. Grootswagers, I. Zhou, A. K. Robinson, M. N. Hebart, and T. A. Carlson, “Human eeg recordings for 1,854 concepts presented in rapid serial visual presentation streams,” Scientific Data , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 3, 2022

2022
[25]

Decoding the information structure underlying the neural representation of concepts,

L. Fernandino, J.-Q. Tong, L. L. Conant, C. J. Humphries, and J. R. Binder, “Decoding the information structure underlying the neural representation of concepts,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119, no. 6, p. e2108091119, 2022

2022
[26]

Concept neurons in the human medial temporal lobe flexibly represent abstract relations between concepts,

M. Bausch, J. Niediek, T. P. Reber, S. Mackay, J. Bostr ¨om, C. E. Elger, and F. Mormann, “Concept neurons in the human medial temporal lobe flexibly represent abstract relations between concepts,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 6164, 2021

2021
[27]

The dynamics of functional brain networks: integrated network states during cognitive task performance,

J. M. Shine, P. G. Bissett, P. T. Bell, O. Koyejo, J. H. Balsters, K. J. Gorgolewski, C. A. Moodie, and R. A. Poldrack, “The dynamics of functional brain networks: integrated network states during cognitive task performance,” Neuron, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 544–554, 2016

2016
[28]

Coupled sleep rhythms for memory consolidation,

B. P. Staresina, “Coupled sleep rhythms for memory consolidation,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 2024

2024
[29]

Advancing eeg/meg source imaging with geometric-informed basis functions,

S. Wang, C. Wei, K. Lou, D. Gu, and Q. Liu, “Advancing eeg/meg source imaging with geometric-informed basis functions,” in 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–4

2024
[30]

Edge sparse basis network: a deep learning framework for eeg source localization,

C. Wei, K. Lou, Z. Wang, M. Zhao, D. Mantini, and Q. Liu, “Edge sparse basis network: a deep learning framework for eeg source localization,” in 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Dynamic representation of multidimensional object properties in the human brain,

L. Teichmann, M. N. Hebart, and C. I. Baker, “Dynamic representation of multidimensional object properties in the human brain,” bioRxiv, pp. 2023–09, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [1]

BrainVis: Exploring the Bridge between Brain and Visual Signals via Image Reconstruction

H. Fu, Z. Shen, J. J. Chin, and H. Wang, “Brainvis: Exploring the bridge between brain and visual signals via image reconstruction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14871, 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[3] [2]

Decoding visual brain representations from electroencephalography through knowledge distillation and latent diffusion models,

M. Ferrante, T. Boccato, S. Bargione, and N. Toschi, “Decoding visual brain representations from electroencephalography through knowledge distillation and latent diffusion models,” Computers in Biology and Medicine , vol. 178, p. 108701, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482524007868

work page 2024

[4] [3]

Visual decoding and reconstruction via eeg embeddings with guided diffusion,

D. Li, C. Wei, S. Li, J. Zou, and Q. Liu, “Visual decoding and reconstruction via eeg embeddings with guided diffusion,” in The Thirty- eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

work page

[5] [4]

Dream: Visual decoding from reversing human visual system,

W. Xia, R. De Charette, C. Oztireli, and J.-H. Xue, “Dream: Visual decoding from reversing human visual system,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2024, pp. 8226–8235

work page 2024

[6] [5]

Controllable mind visual diffusion model,

B. Zeng, S. Li, X. Liu, S. Gao, X. Jiang, X. Tang, Y . Hu, J. Liu, and B. Zhang, “Controllable mind visual diffusion model,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 6935–6943

work page 2024

[7] [6]

Mindshot: Brain decoding framework using only one image,

S. Jiang, Z. Meng, D. Liu, H. Li, F. Su, and Z. Zhao, “Mindshot: Brain decoding framework using only one image,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15278

arXiv 2024

[8] [7]

Grounding object concepts in perception and action: evidence from fmri studies of tools,

M. S. Beauchamp and A. Martin, “Grounding object concepts in perception and action: evidence from fmri studies of tools,” Cortex, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 461–468, 2007

work page 2007