Weichwald Sebastian, Meyer Timm, Özdenizci Ozan, Schölkopf Bernhard, Ball Tonio, Grosse-Wentrup Moritz
Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen, Germany.
Sabancı University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
Neuroimage. 2015 Apr 15;110:48-59. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.036. Epub 2015 Jan 24.
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.
因果术语经常在对基于神经影像数据训练的编码和解码模型的解释中被引入。在本文中,我们研究哪些因果陈述是合理的,哪些没有得到经验证据的支持。我们认为,编码和解码模型之间的区别不足以实现这一目的:编码和解码模型中的相关特征在基于刺激和基于反应的实验范式中具有不同的含义。我们表明,只有基于刺激设置中的编码模型支持明确的因果解释。然而,通过结合基于相同数据训练的编码和解码模型,我们获得了超出每种单独模型类型所暗示的因果关系的见解。我们在视觉运动学习任务中记录的脑电图数据上说明了我们理论发现的经验相关性。