Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
courses:rg:predicting_human_brain_activity_associated_with_the_meanings_of_nouns [2011/09/11 11:59] ufal |
courses:rg:predicting_human_brain_activity_associated_with_the_meanings_of_nouns [2011/09/11 12:42] ufal |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| * convenience of selected verbs as a basis for features | * convenience of selected verbs as a basis for features | ||
| * they generated 115 random sets of 25 features constructed from 5000 highly frequent words (excluding 25 verbs used in an original setting) in corpus and trained system using these feature sets | * they generated 115 random sets of 25 features constructed from 5000 highly frequent words (excluding 25 verbs used in an original setting) in corpus and trained system using these feature sets | ||
| - | * accuracy of prediction fMRI ranged from 0.46 to 0.68 (with mean equal to 0.60) => compared with 0.77 in setting using | + | * accuracy of prediction fMRI ranged from 0.46 to 0.68 (with mean equal to 0.60) => compared with 0.77 in setting using 25 manually selected verbs it suggest that these 25 designed features are distinctive in capturing regularities in the neural activation encoding of the semantic content of words |
| + | * conclusion | ||
| + | * this work presented a predictive relationship between word co-occurrence statistics and neural activation | ||
| + | * high accuracy of selected 25 features shows that neural representation of concrete words is to a large extent grounded in sensory-motor features | ||
| + | * it shows that semantic features share commonalities across individuals and may help to predict neural representations across individuals, | ||
| + | * the model captures semantic, rather than visual aspect of words | ||
| ===== What do we like about the paper ===== | ===== What do we like about the paper ===== | ||
| Line 46: | Line 51: | ||
| ===== What do we dislike about the paper ===== | ===== What do we dislike about the paper ===== | ||
| * authors selected 25 sensory-motor verbs as a basis for their co-occurence features. But they did not sufficiently explain what led them to pick exactly these ones. | * authors selected 25 sensory-motor verbs as a basis for their co-occurence features. But they did not sufficiently explain what led them to pick exactly these ones. | ||
| - | * | + | * gold standard fMRI images are the result of word-picture pair being presented to participants. We think, that showing a picture on the one hand can be helpful for an individual to imagine the thing, on the other hand it can strictly limit the variety of concepts that an individual can assign to the word. It is similar to reading a book vs. watching a movie. |
| + | * for how long were the participants exposed to every word-picture pair? If it is too long, an individual can start to think about other things that he considers to be related with an original thing | ||
| + | * it would be interesting to carry out similar research on abstract words | ||
| Written by Michal Novák | Written by Michal Novák | ||