Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Representational models: A common framework for understanding encoding, pattern-component, and representational-similarity analysis

View ORCID ProfileJӧrn Diedrichsen, View ORCID ProfileNikolaus Kriegeskorte
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/071472
Jӧrn Diedrichsen
1Brain and Mind Institute, Department for Computer Science, Department for Statistical and Actuarial Science, Western University, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jӧrn Diedrichsen
Nikolaus Kriegeskorte
2Cognitive and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge University, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nikolaus Kriegeskorte
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Representational models specify how activity patterns in populations of neurons (or, more generally, in multivariate brain-activity measurements) relate to sensory stimuli, motor responses, or cognitive processes. In an experimental context, representational models can be defined as hypotheses about the distribution of activity profiles across experimental conditions. Previous studies have used three different methods to test such hypotheses: encoding analysis, pattern component modeling (PCM), and representational similarity analysis (RSA). Here we develop a common mathematical framework for understanding the relationship of these three methods, which all share one core commonality: all three evaluate the second moment of the distribution of activity profiles, which determines how well any feature can be linearly decoded from population activity. Using simulated data for three different experimental designs, we compare the power of the methods to adjudicate between competing representational models. PCM implements a likelihood-ratio test and therefore provides the most powerful test if its assumptions hold. However, the other two approaches – when conducted appropriately – can perform similarly. In encoding analysis, the linear model needs to be appropriately regularized, which effectively imposes a prior on the activity profiles. With such a prior, an encoding model specifies a well-defined distribution of activity profiles. In RSA, the unequal variances and statistical dependencies of the dissimilarity estimates need to be taken into account to enable near-optimal inference. The three methods render different aspects of the information explicit (e.g. single-response tuning in encoding analysis and population-response representational dissimilarity in RSA) and have specific advantages in terms of computational demands, ease of use, and extensibility. The three methods are properly construed as complementary components of a comprehensive data-analytical toolkit for understanding neural representations on the basis of multivariate brain-activity data.

Author Summary Modern neuroscience can measure activity of many neurons or the local blood oxygenation of many brain locations simultaneously. As the number of simultaneous measurements grows, we can better investigate how the brain represents and transforms information, to enable perception, cognition, and behavior. Recent studies go beyond showing that a brain region is involved in some function. They use representational models that specify how different perceptions, cognitions, and actions are encoded in brain-activity patterns. In this paper. we provide a general mathematical framework for such representational models, which clarifies the relationships between three different methods that are currently used in the neuroscience community. All three methods evaluate the same core feature of the data, but each has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Pattern component modelling (PCM) implements the most powerful test between models, and is analytically tractable and expandable. Representational similarity analysis (RSA) provides a highly useful summary statistic (the dissimilarity) and enables model comparison with weaker distributional assumptions. Finally, encoding models characterize individual responses and enable the study of their layout across cortex. We argue that these methods should be considered components of a larger toolkit for testing hypotheses about the way the brain represents information.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 18, 2017.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Representational models: A common framework for understanding encoding, pattern-component, and representational-similarity analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Representational models: A common framework for understanding encoding, pattern-component, and representational-similarity analysis
Jӧrn Diedrichsen, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte
bioRxiv 071472; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/071472
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Representational models: A common framework for understanding encoding, pattern-component, and representational-similarity analysis
Jӧrn Diedrichsen, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte
bioRxiv 071472; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/071472

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Neuroscience
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3506)
  • Biochemistry (7348)
  • Bioengineering (5324)
  • Bioinformatics (20266)
  • Biophysics (10020)
  • Cancer Biology (7744)
  • Cell Biology (11306)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6437)
  • Ecology (9954)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13325)
  • Genetics (9361)
  • Genomics (12587)
  • Immunology (7702)
  • Microbiology (19027)
  • Molecular Biology (7444)
  • Neuroscience (41049)
  • Paleontology (300)
  • Pathology (1230)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2138)
  • Physiology (3161)
  • Plant Biology (6861)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1273)
  • Synthetic Biology (1897)
  • Systems Biology (5313)
  • Zoology (1089)