Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

An encoding framework with brain inner state for natural image identification

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a brain 'inner state' term to fMRI encoding models lifts natural image identification to 100 percent.

desk verdict The ISF idea is a reasonable denoising heuristic, but the encoding evaluation leaks the target through other voxels' measured activity, and the zero-model control makes that plain. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08807 v1 pith:QEXJTXQA submitted 2019-08-22 q-bio.NC cs.LGeess.IVstat.ML

Hao Wu , Ziyu Zhu , Jiayi Wang , Nanning Zheng , Badong Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.LGeess.IVstat.ML
keywords fMRIencodingbraindecodingnaturalimageidentificationinnerstatemodelvoxel-wisefunctionalconnectivitypredictionresidualsPCA
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

The paper sets out to show that fMRI voxel responses to natural images are better explained and decoded when a standard forward encoding model is augmented with an estimate of the brain's 'inner state.' It proposes a framework in which any forward model's per-voxel prediction is corrected by a linear term built from the residuals of other voxels, on the grounds that visual cortex is a state machine with intrinsic connections, not a passive sensor. On a two-subject dataset, the correction raises mean encoding $R^2$ from 0.28 to 0.42 for the best forward model and lifts natural-image identification accuracy from 95.83% to 100% on subject 1 and from 88.33% to 95.83% on subject 2. The paper also reports that the zero model, which receives no image features at all, reaches $R^2 = 0.35$ under the framework, which it reads as evidence that the residual structure carries real intrinsic information. If true, the framework would give a general way to improve any fMRI encoding model without redesigning its stimulus features, with potential value for brain-computer interfaces and neural image reconstruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inner-state model built from prediction residuals. After fitting a forward model on training data, the paper forms a residual matrix $E = [\epsilon_1, \dots, \epsilon_p]$ with $\epsilon_i = v_i - f_i(X)\tilde{\beta}_i$; for each voxel, it selects 'connected' voxels whose residual vectors have Pearson correlation above a threshold, and sets the inner state $\tilde{s}_i = E_i \alpha_i$, the first principal component of those connected voxels' residuals. A scalar weight $\tilde{\lambda}_i$ is then fitted by least squares, and the final ISF prediction is $v_i = f_i(X)\beta_i + \tilde{s}_i \tilde{\lambda}_i$. In decoding, the inner-state correction is applied to both the forward model's predicted pattern and the measured pattern, and identification picks the image whose corrected predicted pattern has the highest Pearson correlation with the measured pattern. This machinery is what carries the paper's claim that residual structure—rather than noise—contains recoverable information about intrinsic brain state.

What would settle it

Re-run ISF with the inner state for validation images estimated only from training-data residuals and the forward model's predictions (never from the validation image's measured pattern); if the encoding $R^2$ and identification gains over forward-only models largely vanish, the reported improvements depend on access to the measured response being predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Traditionally, a voxel-wise encoding model predicts each voxel's response as $v_i = f_i(X)\beta_i + e_i$, treating the brain as a stimulus-response mapper. The paper's central discovery is that adding an inner-state term $s_i\lambda_i$ to this equation—where $s_i$ is estimated as the first principal component of the prediction residuals of voxels whose residual time courses are highly correlated with voxel $i$—produces substantially higher encoding $R^2$ and identification accuracy than the forward model alone. Because the correction is built from residuals after the stimulus features have explained their portion, the paper argues it captures influence from intrinsic connections rather than from the image. The framework is deliberately agnostic to the forward model: Gabor wavelet pyramid, gross local orientation, retinotopy-only, and even a zero model can be plugged in. With effective forward models the corrected predictions also degrade less as the candidate image set grows from 100 to 1,000 images and remain accurate when pattern similarity is measured by Euclidean distance instead of Pearson correlation.

Load-bearing premise

The framework estimates a voxel's inner state in a validation image from the true measured activities of other voxels in that same image, so the prediction is not made from stimulus information alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plugging any of the four tested forward models into ISF yields a statistically significant encoding $R^2$ increase over the forward-only version (t test, p < 0.01).
  • ISF identification accuracy stays high as the candidate image set grows from 100 to 1,000 images, with a mean decline of 10.25%, 5.23%, and 17.44% for GWP, GLO, and RO versus 35.52%, 18.92%, and 51.51% for the forward-only versions.
  • ISF predictions remain close to measured patterns under Euclidean distance as well as Pearson correlation; for subject 1, ISF+GLO identification stays at 98.33% with Euclidean distance while forward-only GLO drops from 95.87% to 75%.
  • The zero-model ISF reaches $R^2 = 0.35$ without any image features, but cannot identify images above chance, indicating the inner-state term alone carries non-stimulus structure but not image identity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the inner state for a validation image is computed from that image's measured voxel activities, part of the reported encoding $R^2$ gain likely reflects the model seeing the target pattern through other voxels; a test that estimates inner state from training data alone would reveal how much.
  • Editorial inference: the zero-model result suggests the residual-based correction may also be absorbing shared noise or non-stimulus response components; applying ISF to image labels shuffled across the validation set would measure how much of the identification gain is specific to image content.
  • Editorial inference: the framework's flexibility implies it could be combined with deep-network features or applied to EEG/MEG single-trial decoding, where a measured spatiotemporal pattern is available to seed the inner-state estimate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an encoding framework (ISF) that augments a conventional forward stimulus-response encoding model with a data-driven "brain inner state" term. The inner state is estimated as the first principal component of the forward-model residuals of voxels that are highly correlated with the target voxel. The authors evaluate the framework on the Kay et al. natural-image fMRI dataset, reporting that ISF improves mean encoding R2 (e.g., GLO from 0.28 to 0.42) and image identification accuracy (e.g., ISF+GLO 100% for subject 1) relative to forward-only models, and that even a zero forward model combined with ISF reaches R2=0.35. The paper also studies identification accuracy as a function of image-set size and voxel count. The central claim is that adding the inner-state term to any forward encoding model yields substantial, robust gains in both encoding and decoding.

Significance. If the reported results were valid, the paper would present a conceptually interesting extension of voxel-wise encoding models, with a plausible neuroscientific motivation from intrinsic connectivity and a practical gain in decoding performance. The use of a public dataset, four forward models, and a zero-model control is a commendable design. However, the encoding evaluation is fundamentally compromised by target leakage: the inner state for a validation image is constructed from the true measured activities of other voxels for that same image, so the reported R2 gains do not reflect stimulus-driven prediction. The zero-model result of R2=0.35 without any image features is a direct demonstration of this leakage. The decoding procedure is also underspecified, leaving open the same leakage concern. As a result, the paper's main claims are not supported, and the contribution cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-A, Eqs. (5)-(6); Section III-B.1] The encoding evaluation is circular. In Eqs. (5)-(6), the inner state s_i for a voxel is estimated as the first principal component of the residual vectors of its connected voxels, and the introduction explicitly states that 'to estimate the inner state of one voxel, one needs to know other voxels' true activities.' For the validation images, those true activities are the measured responses to the same image being predicted. Substituting this s_i into Eq. (2) means that each voxel's prediction uses the measured activity of other voxels from the same validation image. The reported encoding R2 values (e.g., ISF+GLO R2=0.42 vs. GLO R2=0.28, Fig. 3) therefore do not measure stimulus-driven predictive accuracy; they are inflated by information from the target image itself. This is a load-bearing flaw for the claim that ISF 'achieves much better performance' in encoding.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Section III-B.1] The zero-model control result is decisive evidence of target leakage. The zero model has no image features (Eq. 14), so ISF+ZM receives no stimulus information. Its reported mean R2 of 0.35 can only arise from correlations among the measured validation activities of connected voxels via Eqs. (5)-(6). This shows that the inner-state term, as implemented, is not extracting stimulus-independent brain dynamics; it is exploiting the measured response pattern of the same image. The paper itself notes that ISF+ZM 'still achieved a better predictive power of R2 = 0.35,' but the authors do not recognize that this invalidates rather than supports the framework's encoding claims.
  3. [Section II-C] The decoding procedure is underspecified in a way that matters for the identification results. The text says that the inner state model is 'applied to the predicted pattern and the measured pattern' to yield an updated prediction, but no equations are given for how the test-time inner state is computed. If the measured pattern (the one whose image identity is being sought) is used to estimate the inner state for each candidate image, then the updated prediction can be made artificially similar to the measured pattern for the correct image, inflating identification accuracy. The paper does not rule out this possibility, and hence the reported 100% and 95.83% identification accuracies for ISF+GLO are not interpretable without a precise statement of the test-time estimation procedure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II-A] The choices of the correlation threshold for defining connected voxels and the number of principal components retained are not reported; these free parameters are central to the method and should be stated explicitly or provided in a supplementary table.
  2. [Eq. (7)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (6) defines \tilde{s}_i as the PCA-based estimate, Eq. (7) uses \tilde{s}_i to compute \tilde{\lambda}_i, but Eq. (2) uses s_i without tildes. Please clarify the relationship between the training-time estimate and the validation-time estimate.
  3. [Fig. 4] The scatter plots in the second column of Fig. 4 are very small and the axis labels overlap; larger panels or a density-color representation would make the voxel-level comparison readable.
  4. [Section IV-D] The phrase 'extern stimuli' should read 'external stimuli'.
  5. [References] Reference [15] and [16] lack complete bibliographic information (volume, pages, and publication year are missing); please complete these entries.
  6. [Section IV-B and Fig. 7] The paper claims state-of-the-art performance but does not compare with previously published identification accuracies on the same Kay et al. dataset; a comparison table would strengthen the decoding claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Validation-time inner state is estimated from true measured responses of connected voxels (Sec. II-A), making the reported encoding R2 gains—and arguably decoding gains—reflect target leakage rather than predictive encoding.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Introduction; Section II-A (Eqs. 2, 3, 5, 6); Section III-B.1]
    "To estimate the inner state of one voxel, one needs to know other voxels’ true activities, this feature makes the proposed encoding framework naturally suitable for brain decoding, where a measured activity pattern must be given at first. ... The zero model has as expected no predictive power (R2 = 0), but ISF with ZM still achieved a better predictive power of R2 = 0.35."

    The ISF prediction for voxel i is v_i = f_i(X)β_i + s_i λ_i (Eq. 2). At validation time, s_i is the first principal component of the residual matrix E_i built from residuals ϵ_i = v_i − f_i(X)β_i (Eqs. 3, 5, 6) of connected voxels on the same 120 validation images. Therefore each voxel's 'prediction' is partly a linear combination of other voxels' true measured responses to the same image. The reported R2 gains (e.g., GLO from 0.28 to 0.42) are not a test of stimulus-driven encoding; they are inflated by target leakage. The zero-model control confirms this: with F=0, residuals equal measured activity, yet ISF+ZM attains R2=0.35, showing the gain comes from correlations among measured validation activities, not from external stimulus information.

full rationale

The paper's central encoding claim is that adding the inner-state term s_i λ_i improves prediction of held-out fMRI responses. But the method explicitly requires the true activities of connected voxels to estimate s_i (Eqs. 5–6), and the validation R2 is computed on the same 120 images. Thus the 'predicted' response for each voxel is, by construction, partly a function of the true measured responses of neighboring voxels in the same image. This is confirmed by the zero-model result: ISF+ZM, which receives no image features, still reaches R2=0.35. The decoding improvement is less clearly reducible because Section II-C does not give equations for how the inner-state model is applied to the measured pattern; that underspecification is a correctness risk but not a demonstrated circular step. There are no self-citation or uniqueness-theorem issues here. Overall, the encoding improvements are not independent evidence for the framework's predictive content, so the paper's strongest quantitative support is largely circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on several strong assumptions: residuals carry a shared latent state, Pearson correlation captures connectivity, PCA is the right estimator, training connectivity generalizes to test, and the test-time use of measured activity is non-circular. The connectivity threshold is a free parameter that is not reported. The invented 'inner state' has no independent evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • connectivity_threshold = not reported
    In Section II-A, voxels are selected as 'connected' to each voxel when Pearson's r of their residual vectors is above a given threshold. The threshold value is never reported, yet it directly determines the inner state estimate and all subsequent results.
  • number_of_principal_components = 1
    The inner state for each voxel is defined as the first principal component of its connected voxels' residuals (Eq. 6). Using one component is an arbitrary modeling choice; no comparison with other numbers is provided.
  • R2_survival_threshold = 0.1
    In Section III-B1, voxels with R2 below 0.1 are excluded from mean R2 calculations and identification; this threshold is fixed and not varied, and it may bias comparisons toward models with more high-R2 voxels.
  • optimal_voxel_count = 800-1000
    In Section III-B2, identification accuracy is reported at the number of voxels that gives optimal performance (about 800 to 1000). Selecting the best voxel count per model and subject can inflate reported accuracy without accounting for the selection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Forward-model residuals contain a stimulus-independent 'inner state' shared across voxels and linearly predictable from connected voxels.
    This is the core assumption of Eq. 2 and Section II-A. The paper provides no independent validation that the residual structure reflects neural state rather than unmodeled stimulus variance or correlated noise.
  • domain assumption Pearson correlation between residual vectors reflects intrinsic brain connectivity, not shared stimulus features.
    Used to define connected voxels in Section II-A. Because natural images have strong spatial correlations, residual correlations may simply reflect incomplete stimulus modeling rather than connectivity.
  • ad hoc to paper The first principal component of connected residual vectors adequately represents the inner state for each voxel.
    Section II-A chooses PCA as the estimation method without comparing to ICA or CCA, which the authors list as future work in Section IV-D. The choice is arbitrary and not justified by data.
  • domain assumption The residual covariance structure learned on training images generalizes to validation images and across scan sessions.
    The PCA projection vectors and lambda weights are fitted on training data and applied to the validation set. If connectivity changes over time or across sessions, the inner state estimate is invalid.
  • ad hoc to paper Test-time inner state can be estimated from measured true activities without leaking the stimulus label into the decision.
    Section II-A states that inner state estimation requires other voxels' true activities. This makes the framework non-predictive for encoding; for decoding, the paper does not formally show that the inner state computed from the measured pattern does not simply encode the identity of the correct image.
invented entities (1)
  • brain inner state (s_i)
    purpose: Latent variable intended to capture non-stimulus, connectivity-driven components of voxel activity, estimated as the first principal component of residual vectors of connected voxels.
    The inner state is defined entirely within the model as a PCA projection of residuals. The paper provides no falsifiable prediction or independent measure that would validate it as a neural state rather than noise or stimulus-correlated confound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An encoding framework with brain inner state for natural image identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QEXJTXQA

@misc{pith2026190808807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An encoding framework with brain inner state for natural image identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QEXJTXQA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08807}
}
read the original abstract

Neural encoding and decoding, which aim to characterize the relationship between stimuli and brain activities, have emerged as an important area in cognitive neuroscience. Traditional encoding models, which focus on feature extraction and mapping, consider the brain as an input-output mapper without inner states. In this work, inspired by the fact that human brain acts like a state machine, we proposed a novel encoding framework that combines information from both the external world and the inner state to predict brain activity. The framework comprises two parts: forward encoding model that deals with visual stimuli and inner state model that captures influence from intrinsic connections in the brain. The forward model can be any traditional encoding model, making the framework flexible. The inner state model is a linear model to utilize information in the prediction residuals of the forward model. The proposed encoding framework can achieve much better performance on natural image identification from fMRI response than forwardonly models. The identification accuracy will decrease slightly with the dataset size increasing, but remain relatively stable with different identification methods. The results confirm that the new encoding framework is effective and robust when used for brain decoding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of visual encoding. Cyan dots in gray circles represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of ISF. (a) Encoding framework. (b) Decoding procedure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of encoding performance of the four forward encoding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Encoding performance of the four forward models and ISFs combined with them. The encoding performance was defined as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Decoding performance of the four forward models and ISFs combined with them. The decoding performance was defined as the accuracy of identifying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scaling of identification performance with set size. (a) Performance curves of the four forward-only models and ISFs combined with them for the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of identification performance of GLO and ISF with pattern [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Encoding and decoding in fMRI,

    T. Naselaris, K. N. Kay, S. Nishimoto, and J. L. Gallant, “Encoding and decoding in fMRI,” NeuroImage, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 400–410, May 2011. [Online]. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S1053811910010657

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Multivariate decoding and brain reading: Introduction to the special issue,

    J.-D. Haynes, “Multivariate decoding and brain reading: Introduction to the special issue,” NeuroImage, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 385–386, May

    work page

  3. [3]

    Finding the BOLD effect in brain images,

    S. Ogawa, “Finding the BOLD effect in brain images,” NeuroImage, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 608–609, Aug. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912001085

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Identifying natural images from human brain activity,

    Kendrick N. Kay, T. Naselaris, R. J. Prenger, and J. L. Gallant, “Identifying natural images from human brain activity,” Nature, vol. 452, no. 7185, pp. 352–355, Mar. 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature06713

    doi:10.1038/nature06713 2008

  5. [5]

    Encoding and decoding V1 fMRI responses to natural images with sparse nonparametric models,

    V . Q. Vu, P. Ravikumar, T. Naselaris, K. N. Kay, J. L. Gallant, and B. Yu, “Encoding and decoding V1 fMRI responses to natural images with sparse nonparametric models,” The Annals of Applied Statistics, vol. 5, no. 2B, pp. 1159–1182, Jun. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoas/1310562717

    work page arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies,

    S. Nishimoto, A. Vu, T. Naselaris, Y . Benjamini, B. Yu, and J. Gallant, “Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies,” Current Biology , vol. 21, no. 19, pp. 1641–1646, Oct. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0960982211009377

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    A voxel-wise encoding model for early visual areas decodes mental images of remembered scenes,

    T. Naselaris, C. A. Olman, D. E. Stansbury, K. Ugurbil, and J. L. Gallant, “A voxel-wise encoding model for early visual areas decodes mental images of remembered scenes,” NeuroImage, vol. 105, pp. 215–228, Jan. 2015. [Online]. Available: http: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811914008428

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex,

    A. G. Huth, W. A. de Heer, T. L. Griffiths, F. E. Theunissen, and J. L. Gallant, “Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex,” Nature, vol. 532, no. 7600, pp. 453–458, Apr. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10. 1038/nature17637

    work page 2016

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Bayesian Reconstruction of Natural Images from Human Brain Activity,

    T. Naselaris, R. J. Prenger, K. N. Kay, M. Oliver, and J. L. Gallant, “Bayesian Reconstruction of Natural Images from Human Brain Activity,” Neuron, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 902–915, Sep. 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.cell.com/article/S0896627309006850/abstract

    2009

  2. [10]

    Unsupervised Feature Learning Improves Prediction of Human Brain Activity in Response to Natural Images,

    U. Gl and M. A. J. v. Gerven, “Unsupervised Feature Learning Improves Prediction of Human Brain Activity in Response to Natural Images,” PLOS Computational Biology , vol. 10, no. 8, p. e1003724, Aug. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ article?id...

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Deep neural networks reveal a gradient in the complexity of neural representations across the ventral stream,

    U. G ¨uc ¸l¨u and M. A. van Gerven, “Deep neural networks reveal a gradient in the complexity of neural representations across the ventral stream,” Journal of Neuroscience , vol. 35, no. 27, pp. 10 005–10 014, 2015. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COGNITIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS 11

    2015

  4. [12]

    Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain,

    Y . Kamitani and F. Tong, “Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 679–685,

  5. [13]

    Neural Encoding and Decoding with Deep Learning for Dynamic Natural Vision,

    H. Wen, J. Shi, Y . Zhang, K.-H. Lu, J. Cao, and Z. Liu, “Neural Encoding and Decoding with Deep Learning for Dynamic Natural Vision,” Cerebral Cortex , pp. 1–25. [Online]. Available: https://academic.oup. com/cercor/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cercor/bhx268/4560155

    doi

  6. [14]

    Decoding of visual activity patterns from fMRI responses using multivariate pattern analyses and convolutional neural network,

    R. Zafar, N. Kamel, M. Naufal, A. S. Malik, S. C. Dass, R. F. Ahmad, J. M. Abdullah, and F. Reza, “Decoding of visual activity patterns from fMRI responses using multivariate pattern analyses and convolutional neural network,” Journal of Integrative Neuroscience , vol. 16, no....

    2017

  7. [15]

    A Novel Brain Decoding Method: a Correlation Network Framework for Revealing Brain Connections,

    S. Yu, N. Zheng, Y . Ma, H. Wu, and B. Chen, “A Novel Brain Decoding Method: a Correlation Network Framework for Revealing Brain Connections,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, pp. 1–1, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Reconstructing Perceived Images From Human Brain Activities With Bayesian Deep Multiview Learning,

    C. Du, C. Du, L. Huang, and H. He, “Reconstructing Perceived Images From Human Brain Activities With Bayesian Deep Multiview Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, pp. 1–14, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Resolving Ambiguities of MVPA Using Explicit Models of Representation,

    T. Naselaris and K. N. Kay, “Resolving Ambiguities of MVPA Using Explicit Models of Representation,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 551–554, Oct. 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661315001692

    2015

  10. [18]

    Is the brain an effective turing machine or a finite-state machine?

    F. van der Velde, “Is the brain an effective turing machine or a finite-state machine?” Psychological Research, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 71–79, Mar 1993. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419895

    1993 doi

  11. [19]

    Discovering dynamic brain networks from big data in rest and task,

    D. Vidaurre, R. Abeysuriya, R. Becker, A. J. Quinn, F. Alfaro- Almagro, S. M. Smith, and M. W. Woolrich, “Discovering dynamic brain networks from big data in rest and task,” NeuroImage, Jun

  12. [20]

    Top-down influences on visual processing,

    C. D. Gilbert and W. Li, “Top-down influences on visual processing,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 350–363, May

  13. [21]

    Feedback of visual object information to foveal retinotopic cortex,

    M. A. Williams, C. I. Baker, H. P. Op de Beeck, W. Mok Shim, S. Dang, C. Triantafyllou, and N. Kanwisher, “Feedback of visual object information to foveal retinotopic cortex,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1439–1445, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com...

    2008

  14. [22]

    Perceptual Learning Incepted by Decoded fMRI Neurofeedback Without Stimulus Presentation,

    K. Shibata, T. Watanabe, Y . Sasaki, and M. Kawato, “Perceptual Learning Incepted by Decoded fMRI Neurofeedback Without Stimulus Presentation,” Science, vol. 334, no. 6061, pp. 1413–1415, Dec

  15. [23]

    Functional connectivity in the resting brain: A network analysis of the default mode hypothesis,

    M. D. Greicius, B. Krasnow, A. L. Reiss, and V . Menon, “Functional connectivity in the resting brain: A network analysis of the default mode hypothesis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 253–258, Jan. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://ww...

    2003

  16. [24]

    Resting-State Functional Connectivity Reflects Structural Connectivity in the Default Mode Network,

    M. D. Greicius, K. Supekar, V . Menon, and R. F. Dougherty, “Resting-State Functional Connectivity Reflects Structural Connectivity in the Default Mode Network,” Cerebral Cortex , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 72–78, Jan. 2009. [Online]. Available: https://academic.oup.com/cercor/ articl...

    2009

  17. [25]

    Natural Image Statistics and Neural Representation,

    Bruno A. Olshausen, “Natural Image Statistics and Neural Representation,” Annual Review of Neuroscience , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1193–1216, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.neuro.24.1.1193

    2001

  18. [26]

    The role of context in object recognition,

    A. Oliva and A. Torralba, “The role of context in object recognition,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 520–527, Dec

  19. [27]

    Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/ science.1212003

    [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/ science.1212003

  20. [28]

    An evaluation of the two-dimensional Gabor filter model of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex,

    J. P. Jones and L. A. Palmer, “An evaluation of the two-dimensional Gabor filter model of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex,” Journal of Neurophysiology , vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1233–1258, Dec

  21. [29]

    Uncertainty relation for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters,

    J. G. Daugman, “Uncertainty relation for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters,” JOSA A , vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 1160–1169, Jul. 1985. [Online]. Available: https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm? uri=j...

    1985

  22. [30]

    Nonmonotonic noise tuning of BOLD fMRI signal to natural images in the visual cortex of the anesthetized monkey,

    G. Rainer, M. Augath, T. Trinath, and N. K. Logothetis, “Nonmonotonic noise tuning of BOLD fMRI signal to natural images in the visual cortex of the anesthetized monkey,” Current Biology , vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 846–854, Jun. 2001. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect. ...

    2001

  23. [31]

    Isolation of Relevant Visual Features from Random Stimuli for Cortical Complex Cells,

    J. Touryan, B. Lau, and Y . Dan, “Isolation of Relevant Visual Features from Random Stimuli for Cortical Complex Cells,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 24, pp. 10 811–10 818, Dec. 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/24/10811

    2002

  24. [32]

    On the importance of the static nonlinearity in estimating spatiotemporal neural filters with natural stimuli,

    T. O. Sharpee, K. D. Miller, and M. P. Stryker, “On the importance of the static nonlinearity in estimating spatiotemporal neural filters with natural stimuli,” Journal of neurophysiology , vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 2496–2509, May 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g...

    2008

  25. [33]

    Image representation using 2d Gabor wavelets,

    Tai Sing Lee, “Image representation using 2d Gabor wavelets,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 959–971, Oct. 1996

    1996

  26. [34]

    Regression Shrinkage and Selection Via the Lasso,

    R. Tibshirani, “Regression Shrinkage and Selection Via the Lasso,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996. [Online]. Available: https://rss. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x

    1996

  27. [35]

    Sparse estimation automatically selects voxels relevant for the decoding of fMRI activity patterns,

    O. Yamashita, M.-a. Sato, T. Yoshioka, F. Tong, and Y . Kamitani, “Sparse estimation automatically selects voxels relevant for the decoding of fMRI activity patterns,” NeuroImage, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1414–1429, Oct. 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect. com/scie...

    2008

  28. [36]

    Population receptive field estimates in human visual cortex,

    S. O. Dumoulin and B. A. Wandell, “Population receptive field estimates in human visual cortex,” NeuroImage, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 647–660, Jan. 2008. [Online]. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S1053811907008269

    2008

  29. [37]

    Nonstimulated early visual areas carry information about surrounding context,

    F. W. Smith and L. Muckli, “Nonstimulated early visual areas carry information about surrounding context,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 107, no. 46, pp. 20 099–20 103, Nov. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/46/20099

    2010

  30. [38]

    Neuronal Circuits of the Neocortex,

    R. J. Douglas and K. A. Martin, “Neuronal Circuits of the Neocortex,” Annual Review of Neuroscience , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 419–451, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203. 144152

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    Exploring the brain net- work: a review on resting-state fmri functional connectivity,

    M. P. Van Den Heuvel and H. E. H. Pol, “Exploring the brain net- work: a review on resting-state fmri functional connectivity,” European neuropsychopharmacology, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 519–534, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    Coding of image contrast in central visual pathways of the macaque monkey,

    G. Sclar, J. H. R. Maunsell, and P. Lennie, “Coding of image contrast in central visual pathways of the macaque monkey,” Vision Research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Jan. 1990. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0042698990901233

    1990

  33. [41]

    Circuits for Local and Global Signal Integration in Primary Visual Cortex,

    A. Angelucci, J. B. Levitt, E. J. S. Walton, J.-M. Hup, J. Bullier, and J. S. Lund, “Circuits for Local and Global Signal Integration in Primary Visual Cortex,”Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 19, pp. 8633–8646, Oct. 2002. [Online]. Available: http://jneurosci.org/content...

    2002

  34. [42]

    Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition,

    C. Summerfield and T. Egner, “Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 403–409, Sep. 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1364661309001442

    2009

  35. [43]

    Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex,

    P. Kok, J. M. Jehee, and F. deLange, “Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex,” Neuron, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 265–270, Jul. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312004382

    2012

  36. [44]

    Independent component analysis of functional MRI: what is signal and what is noise?

    M. J. McKeown, L. K. Hansen, and T. J. Sejnowsk, “Independent component analysis of functional MRI: what is signal and what is noise?” Current Opinion in Neurobiology , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 620–629, Oct. 2003. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/p...

    2003

  37. [45]

    Detecting functional connec- tivity in the resting brain: a comparison between ica and cca,

    L. Ma, B. Wang, X. Chen, and J. Xiong, “Detecting functional connec- tivity in the resting brain: a comparison between ica and cca,” Magnetic resonance imaging, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 47–56, 2007

    2007

  38. [47]

    The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity,

    B. Thomas Yeo, F. M. Krienen, J. Sepulcre, M. R. Sabuncu, D. Lashkari, M. Hollinshead, J. L. Roffman, J. W. Smoller, L. Z ¨ollei, J. R. Polimeni et al. , “The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity,” Journal of neurophysiology,...

    2011

  39. [1987]

    Available: https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ jn.1987.58.6.1233

    [Online]. Available: https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ jn.1987.58.6.1233

    1987

  40. [2005]

    Available: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n5/ abs/nn1444.html

    [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n5/ abs/nn1444.html

  41. [2007]

    Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1364661307002550

    [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1364661307002550

  42. [2011]

    Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1053811911003363

    [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1053811911003363

  43. [2013]

    Available: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/ full/nrn3476.html

    [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/ full/nrn3476.html

  44. [2017]

    Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1053811917305487

    [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1053811917305487

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.