4.7 Article

Decoding brain states from fMRI connectivity graphs

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 616-626

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.081

关键词

fMRI; Brain decoding; Functional connectivity; Graphs; Decision tree

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PP00P2-123438]
  2. Societe Academique de Geneve
  3. FOREMANE foundation
  4. Center for Biomedical Imaging (CIBM) of the Geneva and Lausanne Universities
  5. EPFL
  6. Leenaards and Louis-Jeantet foundations
  7. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PP00P2_123438] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional connectivity analysis of fMRI data can reveal synchronised activity between anatomically distinct brain regions. Here, we extract the characteristic connectivity signatures of different brain states to perform classification, allowing us to decode the different states based on the functional connectivity patterns. Our approach is based on polythetic decision trees, which combine powerful discriminative ability with interpretability of results. We also propose to use ensemble of classifiers within specific frequency subbands, and show that they bring systematic improvement in classification accuracy. Exploiting multi-band classification of connectivity graphs is also proposed, and we explain theoretical reasons why the technique could bring further improvement in classification performance. The choice of decision trees as classifier is shown to provide a practical way to identify a subset of connections that distinguishes best between the conditions, permitting the extraction of very compact representations for differences between brain states, which we call discriminative graphs. Our experimental results based on strict train/test separation at all stages of processing show that the method is applicable to inter-subject brain decoding with relatively low error rates for the task considered. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据