↓ Skip to main content

The Automatic Neuroscientist: A framework for optimizing experimental design with closed-loop real-time fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, January 2016
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
bluesky
3 Bluesky users

Readers on

mendeley
30 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.
Article details
Title
The Automatic Neuroscientist: A framework for optimizing experimental design with closed-loop real-time fMRI
Published in
NeuroImage, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.032
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Functional neuroimaging typically explores how a particular task activates a set of brain regions. Importantly though, the same neural system can be activated by inherently different tasks. To date, there is no approach available that systematically explores whether and how distinct tasks probe the same neural system. Here, we propose and validate an alternative framework, the Automatic Neuroscientist, which turns the standard fMRI approach on its head. We use real-time fMRI in combination with modern machine-learning techniques to automatically design the optimal experiment to evoke a desired target brain state. In this work, we present two proof-of-principle studies involving perceptual stimuli. In both studies optimization algorithms of varying complexity were employed; the first involved a stochastic approximation method while the second incorporated a more sophisticated Bayesian optimization technique. In the first study, we achieved convergence for the hypothesized optimum in 11 out of 14 runs in less than 10min. Results of the second study showed how our closed-loop framework accurately and with high efficiency estimated the underlying relationship between stimuli and neural responses for each subject in one to two runs: with each run lasting 6.3min. Moreover, we demonstrate that using only the first run produced a reliable solution at a group-level. Supporting simulation analyses provided evidence on the robustness of the Bayesians optimization approach for scenarios with low contrast-to-noise ratio. This framework is generalizable to numerous applications, ranging from optimizing stimuli in neuroimaging pilot studies to tailoring clinical rehabilitation therapy to patients and can be used with multiple imaging modalities in humans and animals.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Germany 3 10%
Portugal 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
France 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 23 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 27%
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Master 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 27%
Neuroscience 7 23%
Engineering 4 13%
Computer Science 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 1 3%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 08 February 2025.
All research outputs
#1,808,961
of 32,346,385 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#998
of 13,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,526
of 436,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#10
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,346,385 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 436,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.