Loading…

Ghosts in machine learning for cognitive neuroscience: Moving from data to theory

The application of machine learning methods to neuroimaging data has fundamentally altered the field of cognitive neuroscience. Future progress in understanding brain function using these methods will require addressing a number of key methodological and interpretive challenges. Because these challe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2018-10, Vol.180 (Pt A), p.88-100
Main Authors: Carlson, Thomas, Goddard, Erin, Kaplan, David M., Klein, Colin, Ritchie, J. Brendan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-3b5b58f259029d203294c992afc1e55050ef87f357640749907c8be9d5353ea43
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-3b5b58f259029d203294c992afc1e55050ef87f357640749907c8be9d5353ea43
container_end_page 100
container_issue Pt A
container_start_page 88
container_title NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)
container_volume 180
creator Carlson, Thomas
Goddard, Erin
Kaplan, David M.
Klein, Colin
Ritchie, J. Brendan
description The application of machine learning methods to neuroimaging data has fundamentally altered the field of cognitive neuroscience. Future progress in understanding brain function using these methods will require addressing a number of key methodological and interpretive challenges. Because these challenges often remain unseen and metaphorically “haunt” our efforts to use these methods to understand the brain, we refer to them as “ghosts”. In this paper, we describe three such ghosts, situate them within a more general framework from philosophy of science, and then describe steps to address them. The first ghost arises from difficulties in determining what information machine learning classifiers use for decoding. The second ghost arises from the interplay of experimental design and the structure of information in the brain – that is, our methods embody implicit assumptions about information processing in the brain, and it is often difficult to determine if those assumptions are satisfied. The third ghost emerges from our limited ability to distinguish information that is merely decodable from the brain from information that is represented and used by the brain. Each of the three ghosts place limits on the interpretability of decoding research in cognitive neuroscience. There are no easy solutions, but facing these issues squarely will provide a clearer path to understanding the nature of representation and computation in the human brain. •Provides a philosophical framework for thinking about applications of machine learning to cognitive neuroscience datasets.•Discussion of current challenges for neural decoding research.•Gives suggestions about how to address contemporary challenges in decoding research.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.019
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1927833623</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1053811917306663</els_id><sourcerecordid>2097516202</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-3b5b58f259029d203294c992afc1e55050ef87f357640749907c8be9d5353ea43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMFuEzEQhi0EoqXwCsgSFy67Hdvr2ObWVqWtVISQ4Gw53tnEUdYu9m6kvn2dJoDUC6eZwzfzz3yEUAYtA7Y437QR55zC6FbYcmCqBd0CM6_IKQMjGyMVf73vpWg0Y-aEvCtlAwCGdfotOeFaGcGFOSU_btapTIWGSEfn1yEi3aLLMcQVHVKmPq1imMIO6XNi8QGjxy_0W9o9IzmNtHeTo1Oi0xpTfnxP3gxuW_DDsZ6RX1-vf17dNvffb-6uLu4bL0FNjVjKpdQDlwa46TkIbjpvDHeDZyglSMBBq0FItehAdcaA8nqJppdCCnSdOCOfD3sfcvo9Y5nsGIrH7dZFTHOxzHClhVhwUdFPL9BNmnOs11kORkm24MArpQ-Ur3-WjIN9yNVwfrQM7F673dh_2u1euwVtq_Y6-vEYMC9H7P8O_vFcgcsDgNXILmC2R5N9yOgn26fw_5QnAYmXfg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2097516202</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ghosts in machine learning for cognitive neuroscience: Moving from data to theory</title><source>Elsevier:Jisc Collections:Elsevier Read and Publish Agreement 2022-2024:Freedom Collection (Reading list)</source><creator>Carlson, Thomas ; Goddard, Erin ; Kaplan, David M. ; Klein, Colin ; Ritchie, J. Brendan</creator><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Thomas ; Goddard, Erin ; Kaplan, David M. ; Klein, Colin ; Ritchie, J. Brendan</creatorcontrib><description>The application of machine learning methods to neuroimaging data has fundamentally altered the field of cognitive neuroscience. Future progress in understanding brain function using these methods will require addressing a number of key methodological and interpretive challenges. Because these challenges often remain unseen and metaphorically “haunt” our efforts to use these methods to understand the brain, we refer to them as “ghosts”. In this paper, we describe three such ghosts, situate them within a more general framework from philosophy of science, and then describe steps to address them. The first ghost arises from difficulties in determining what information machine learning classifiers use for decoding. The second ghost arises from the interplay of experimental design and the structure of information in the brain – that is, our methods embody implicit assumptions about information processing in the brain, and it is often difficult to determine if those assumptions are satisfied. The third ghost emerges from our limited ability to distinguish information that is merely decodable from the brain from information that is represented and used by the brain. Each of the three ghosts place limits on the interpretability of decoding research in cognitive neuroscience. There are no easy solutions, but facing these issues squarely will provide a clearer path to understanding the nature of representation and computation in the human brain. •Provides a philosophical framework for thinking about applications of machine learning to cognitive neuroscience datasets.•Discussion of current challenges for neural decoding research.•Gives suggestions about how to address contemporary challenges in decoding research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-8119</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9572</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28793239</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Artificial intelligence ; Brain decoding ; Brain Mapping - methods ; Brain research ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive Neuroscience - methods ; Data processing ; Datasets ; Exploratory methods ; fMRI ; Ghosts ; Humans ; Information processing ; Learning algorithms ; Machine Learning ; Magnetoencephalography ; Multivariate Analysis ; Multivariate pattern analysis ; Nervous system ; Neuroimaging ; Neurosciences ; Researchers</subject><ispartof>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2018-10, Vol.180 (Pt A), p.88-100</ispartof><rights>2017</rights><rights>Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Oct 15, 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-3b5b58f259029d203294c992afc1e55050ef87f357640749907c8be9d5353ea43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-3b5b58f259029d203294c992afc1e55050ef87f357640749907c8be9d5353ea43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28793239$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goddard, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritchie, J. Brendan</creatorcontrib><title>Ghosts in machine learning for cognitive neuroscience: Moving from data to theory</title><title>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</title><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><description>The application of machine learning methods to neuroimaging data has fundamentally altered the field of cognitive neuroscience. Future progress in understanding brain function using these methods will require addressing a number of key methodological and interpretive challenges. Because these challenges often remain unseen and metaphorically “haunt” our efforts to use these methods to understand the brain, we refer to them as “ghosts”. In this paper, we describe three such ghosts, situate them within a more general framework from philosophy of science, and then describe steps to address them. The first ghost arises from difficulties in determining what information machine learning classifiers use for decoding. The second ghost arises from the interplay of experimental design and the structure of information in the brain – that is, our methods embody implicit assumptions about information processing in the brain, and it is often difficult to determine if those assumptions are satisfied. The third ghost emerges from our limited ability to distinguish information that is merely decodable from the brain from information that is represented and used by the brain. Each of the three ghosts place limits on the interpretability of decoding research in cognitive neuroscience. There are no easy solutions, but facing these issues squarely will provide a clearer path to understanding the nature of representation and computation in the human brain. •Provides a philosophical framework for thinking about applications of machine learning to cognitive neuroscience datasets.•Discussion of current challenges for neural decoding research.•Gives suggestions about how to address contemporary challenges in decoding research.</description><subject>Artificial intelligence</subject><subject>Brain decoding</subject><subject>Brain Mapping - methods</subject><subject>Brain research</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive Neuroscience - methods</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Exploratory methods</subject><subject>fMRI</subject><subject>Ghosts</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Machine Learning</subject><subject>Magnetoencephalography</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Multivariate pattern analysis</subject><subject>Nervous system</subject><subject>Neuroimaging</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><issn>1053-8119</issn><issn>1095-9572</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkMFuEzEQhi0EoqXwCsgSFy67Hdvr2ObWVqWtVISQ4Gw53tnEUdYu9m6kvn2dJoDUC6eZwzfzz3yEUAYtA7Y437QR55zC6FbYcmCqBd0CM6_IKQMjGyMVf73vpWg0Y-aEvCtlAwCGdfotOeFaGcGFOSU_btapTIWGSEfn1yEi3aLLMcQVHVKmPq1imMIO6XNi8QGjxy_0W9o9IzmNtHeTo1Oi0xpTfnxP3gxuW_DDsZ6RX1-vf17dNvffb-6uLu4bL0FNjVjKpdQDlwa46TkIbjpvDHeDZyglSMBBq0FItehAdcaA8nqJppdCCnSdOCOfD3sfcvo9Y5nsGIrH7dZFTHOxzHClhVhwUdFPL9BNmnOs11kORkm24MArpQ-Ur3-WjIN9yNVwfrQM7F673dh_2u1euwVtq_Y6-vEYMC9H7P8O_vFcgcsDgNXILmC2R5N9yOgn26fw_5QnAYmXfg</recordid><startdate>20181015</startdate><enddate>20181015</enddate><creator>Carlson, Thomas</creator><creator>Goddard, Erin</creator><creator>Kaplan, David M.</creator><creator>Klein, Colin</creator><creator>Ritchie, J. Brendan</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181015</creationdate><title>Ghosts in machine learning for cognitive neuroscience: Moving from data to theory</title><author>Carlson, Thomas ; Goddard, Erin ; Kaplan, David M. ; Klein, Colin ; Ritchie, J. Brendan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-3b5b58f259029d203294c992afc1e55050ef87f357640749907c8be9d5353ea43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Artificial intelligence</topic><topic>Brain decoding</topic><topic>Brain Mapping - methods</topic><topic>Brain research</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive Neuroscience - methods</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Exploratory methods</topic><topic>fMRI</topic><topic>Ghosts</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Machine Learning</topic><topic>Magnetoencephalography</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Multivariate pattern analysis</topic><topic>Nervous system</topic><topic>Neuroimaging</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goddard, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritchie, J. Brendan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carlson, Thomas</au><au>Goddard, Erin</au><au>Kaplan, David M.</au><au>Klein, Colin</au><au>Ritchie, J. Brendan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ghosts in machine learning for cognitive neuroscience: Moving from data to theory</atitle><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><date>2018-10-15</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>180</volume><issue>Pt A</issue><spage>88</spage><epage>100</epage><pages>88-100</pages><issn>1053-8119</issn><eissn>1095-9572</eissn><abstract>The application of machine learning methods to neuroimaging data has fundamentally altered the field of cognitive neuroscience. Future progress in understanding brain function using these methods will require addressing a number of key methodological and interpretive challenges. Because these challenges often remain unseen and metaphorically “haunt” our efforts to use these methods to understand the brain, we refer to them as “ghosts”. In this paper, we describe three such ghosts, situate them within a more general framework from philosophy of science, and then describe steps to address them. The first ghost arises from difficulties in determining what information machine learning classifiers use for decoding. The second ghost arises from the interplay of experimental design and the structure of information in the brain – that is, our methods embody implicit assumptions about information processing in the brain, and it is often difficult to determine if those assumptions are satisfied. The third ghost emerges from our limited ability to distinguish information that is merely decodable from the brain from information that is represented and used by the brain. Each of the three ghosts place limits on the interpretability of decoding research in cognitive neuroscience. There are no easy solutions, but facing these issues squarely will provide a clearer path to understanding the nature of representation and computation in the human brain. •Provides a philosophical framework for thinking about applications of machine learning to cognitive neuroscience datasets.•Discussion of current challenges for neural decoding research.•Gives suggestions about how to address contemporary challenges in decoding research.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28793239</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.019</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-8119
ispartof NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2018-10, Vol.180 (Pt A), p.88-100
issn 1053-8119
1095-9572
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1927833623
source Elsevier:Jisc Collections:Elsevier Read and Publish Agreement 2022-2024:Freedom Collection (Reading list)
subjects Artificial intelligence
Brain decoding
Brain Mapping - methods
Brain research
Cognitive ability
Cognitive Neuroscience - methods
Data processing
Datasets
Exploratory methods
fMRI
Ghosts
Humans
Information processing
Learning algorithms
Machine Learning
Magnetoencephalography
Multivariate Analysis
Multivariate pattern analysis
Nervous system
Neuroimaging
Neurosciences
Researchers
title Ghosts in machine learning for cognitive neuroscience: Moving from data to theory
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T00%3A36%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ghosts%20in%20machine%20learning%20for%20cognitive%20neuroscience:%20Moving%20from%20data%20to%20theory&rft.jtitle=NeuroImage%20(Orlando,%20Fla.)&rft.au=Carlson,%20Thomas&rft.date=2018-10-15&rft.volume=180&rft.issue=Pt%20A&rft.spage=88&rft.epage=100&rft.pages=88-100&rft.issn=1053-8119&rft.eissn=1095-9572&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2097516202%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-3b5b58f259029d203294c992afc1e55050ef87f357640749907c8be9d5353ea43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2097516202&rft_id=info:pmid/28793239&rfr_iscdi=true