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...
Saved in:
Published in: | NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2018-10, Vol.180 (Pt A), p.88-100 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & 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 |