» Articles » PMID: 20580933

Comparison of Multivariate Classifiers and Response Normalizations for Pattern-information FMRI

Overview
Journal Neuroimage
Specialty Radiology
Date 2010 Jun 29
PMID 20580933
Citations 206
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A popular method for investigating whether stimulus information is present in fMRI response patterns is to attempt to "decode" the stimuli from the response patterns with a multivariate classifier. The sensitivity for detecting the information depends on the particular classifier used. However, little is known about the relative performance of different classifiers on fMRI data. Here we compared six multivariate classifiers and investigated how the response-amplitude estimate used (beta- or t-value) and different pattern normalizations affect classification performance. The compared classifiers were a pattern-correlation classifier, a k-nearest-neighbors classifier, Fisher's linear discriminant, Gaussian naïve Bayes, and linear and nonlinear (radial-basis-function kernel) support vector machines. We compared these classifiers' accuracy at decoding the category of visual objects from response patterns in human early visual and inferior temporal cortex acquired in an event-related design with BOLD fMRI at 3T using SENSE and isotropic voxels of about 2-mm width. Overall, Fisher's linear discriminant (with an optimal-shrinkage covariance estimator) and the linear support vector machine performed best. The pattern-correlation classifier often performed similarly as those two classifiers. The nonlinear classifiers never performed better and sometimes significantly worse than the linear classifiers, suggesting overfitting. Defining response patterns by t-values (or in error-standard-deviation units) rather than by beta estimates (in % signal change) to define the patterns appeared advantageous. Cross-validation by a leave-one-stimulus-pair-out method gave higher accuracies than a leave-one-run-out method, suggesting that generalization to independent runs (which more safely ensures independence of the test set) is more challenging than generalization to novel stimuli within the same category. Independent selection of fewer more visually responsive voxels tended to yield better decoding performance for all classifiers. Normalizing mean and standard deviation of the response patterns either across stimuli or across voxels had no significant effect on decoding performance. Overall our results suggest that linear decoders based on t-value patterns may perform best in the present scenario of visual object representations measured for about 60min per subject with 3T fMRI.

Citing Articles

Neural Representation Precision of Distance Predicts Children's Arithmetic Performance.

Zhao H, Qi W, Xu J, Yao Y, Lyu J, Yang J Hum Brain Mapp. 2025; 46(4):e70184.

PMID: 40035352 PMC: 11877336. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.70184.


Cognitive maps for hierarchical spaces in the human brain.

Peer M, Epstein R bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39974987 PMC: 11838598. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.05.636580.


Complementary benefits of multivariate and hierarchical models for identifying individual differences in cognitive control.

Freund M, Chen R, Chen G, Braver T Imaging Neurosci (Camb). 2025; 3.

PMID: 39957839 PMC: 11823007. DOI: 10.1162/imag_a_00447.


Orthogonal neural representations support perceptual judgments of natural stimuli.

Srinath R, Ni A, Marucci C, Cohen M, Brainard D Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):5316.

PMID: 39939679 PMC: 11821992. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88910-8.


Distinguishing deception from its confounds by improving the validity of fMRI-based neural prediction.

Lee S, Niu R, Zhu L, Kayser A, Hsu M Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024; 121(50):e2412881121.

PMID: 39642199 PMC: 11648856. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2412881121.


References
1.
Cox D, Savoy R . Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) "brain reading": detecting and classifying distributed patterns of fMRI activity in human visual cortex. Neuroimage. 2003; 19(2 Pt 1):261-70. DOI: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00049-1. View

2.
Kriegeskorte N, Bandettini P . Analyzing for information, not activation, to exploit high-resolution fMRI. Neuroimage. 2007; 38(4):649-62. PMC: 2099257. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.022. View

3.
Kriegeskorte N, Mur M, Ruff D, Kiani R, Bodurka J, Esteky H . Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron. 2008; 60(6):1126-41. PMC: 3143574. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043. View

4.
Haxby J, Gobbini M, Furey M, Ishai A, SCHOUTEN J, Pietrini P . Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science. 2001; 293(5539):2425-30. DOI: 10.1126/science.1063736. View

5.
Norman K, Polyn S, Detre G, Haxby J . Beyond mind-reading: multi-voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006; 10(9):424-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.005. View