Causal interpretation rules for encoding and decoding models in neuroimaging

November 15, 2015 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› NeuroImage

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Sebastian Weichwald, Timm Meyer, Ozan ร–zdenizci, Bernhard Schรถlkopf, Tonio Ball, Moritz Grosse-Wentrup arXiv ID 1511.04780 Category stat.ML: Machine Learning (Stat) Cross-listed cs.LG, q-bio.NC, stat.AP Citations 108 Venue NeuroImage Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Causal terminology is often introduced in the interpretation of encoding and decoding models trained on neuroimaging data. In this article, we investigate which causal statements are warranted and which ones are not supported by empirical evidence. We argue that the distinction between encoding and decoding models is not sufficient for this purpose: relevant features in encoding and decoding models carry a different meaning in stimulus- and in response-based experimental paradigms. We show that only encoding models in the stimulus-based setting support unambiguous causal interpretations. By combining encoding and decoding models trained on the same data, however, we obtain insights into causal relations beyond those that are implied by each individual model type. We illustrate the empirical relevance of our theoretical findings on EEG data recorded during a visuo-motor learning task.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Machine Learning (Stat)

๐Ÿ”ฎ ๐Ÿ”ฎ The Ethereal

Layer Normalization

Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, Geoffrey E. Hinton

stat.ML ๐Ÿ› arXiv ๐Ÿ“š 12.0K cites 10 years ago

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted