» Articles » PMID: 39605927

Contrastive Learning for Neural Fingerprinting from Limited Neuroimaging Data

Overview
Journal Front Nucl Med
Date 2024 Nov 28
PMID 39605927
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Neural fingerprinting is a technique used to identify individuals based on their unique brain activity patterns. While deep learning techniques have been demonstrated to outperform traditional correlation-based methods, they often require retraining to accommodate new subjects. Furthermore, the limited availability of samples in neuroscience research can impede the quick adoption of deep learning methods, presenting a challenge for their broader application in neural fingerprinting.

Methods: This study addresses these challenges by using contrastive learning to eliminate the need for retraining with new subjects and developing a data augmentation methodology to enhance model robustness in limited sample size conditions. We utilized the LEMON dataset, comprising 3 Tesla MRI and resting-state fMRI scans from 138 subjects, to compute functional connectivity as a baseline for fingerprinting performance based on correlation metrics. We adapted a recent deep learning model by incorporating data augmentation with short random temporal segments for training and reformulated the fingerprinting task as a contrastive problem, comparing the efficacy of contrastive triplet loss against conventional cross-entropy loss.

Results: The results of this study confirm that deep learning methods can significantly improve fingerprinting performance over correlation-based methods, achieving an accuracy of about 98% in identifying a single subject out of 138 subjects utilizing 39 different functional connectivity profiles.

Discussion: The contrastive method showed added value in the "leave subject out" scenario, demonstrating flexibility comparable to correlation-based methods and robustness across different data sizes. These findings suggest that contrastive learning and data augmentation offer a scalable solution for neural fingerprinting, even with limited sample sizes.

References
1.
Varoquaux G, Raamana P, Engemann D, Hoyos-Idrobo A, Schwartz Y, Thirion B . Assessing and tuning brain decoders: Cross-validation, caveats, and guidelines. Neuroimage. 2016; 145(Pt B):166-179. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.038. View

2.
Van De Ville D, Farouj Y, Preti M, Liegeois R, Amico E . When makes you unique: Temporality of the human brain fingerprint. Sci Adv. 2021; 7(42):eabj0751. PMC: 8519575. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abj0751. View

3.
van den Heuvel M, Hulshoff Pol H . Exploring the brain network: a review on resting-state fMRI functional connectivity. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010; 20(8):519-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2010.03.008. View

4.
Hassanzadeh R, Silva R, Abrol A, Salman M, Bonkhoff A, Du Y . Individualized spatial network predictions using Siamese convolutional neural networks: A resting-state fMRI study of over 11,000 unaffected individuals. PLoS One. 2022; 17(1):e0249502. PMC: 8782493. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249502. View

5.
Babayan A, Erbey M, Kumral D, Reinelt J, Reiter A, Robbig J . A mind-brain-body dataset of MRI, EEG, cognition, emotion, and peripheral physiology in young and old adults. Sci Data. 2019; 6:180308. PMC: 6371893. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2018.308. View