↓ Skip to main content

Multivariate cross-classification: applying machine learning techniques to characterize abstraction in neural representations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multivariate cross-classification: applying machine learning techniques to characterize abstraction in neural representations
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas T. Kaplan, Kingson Man, Steven G. Greening

Abstract

Here we highlight an emerging trend in the use of machine learning classifiers to test for abstraction across patterns of neural activity. When a classifier algorithm is trained on data from one cognitive context, and tested on data from another, conclusions can be drawn about the role of a given brain region in representing information that abstracts across those cognitive contexts. We call this kind of analysis Multivariate Cross-Classification (MVCC), and review several domains where it has recently made an impact. MVCC has been important in establishing correspondences among neural patterns across cognitive domains, including motor-perception matching and cross-sensory matching. It has been used to test for similarity between neural patterns evoked by perception and those generated from memory. Other work has used MVCC to investigate the similarity of representations for semantic categories across different kinds of stimulus presentation, and in the presence of different cognitive demands. We use these examples to demonstrate the power of MVCC as a tool for investigating neural abstraction and discuss some important methodological issues related to its application.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 169 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 28%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Master 17 9%
Professor 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 33 18%
Unknown 26 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 37%
Neuroscience 35 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 40 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,856,973
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,455
of 7,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,605
of 263,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#59
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.