arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.09352

Many Brains, One Geometry: A Shared Visual-Semantic Space for Cross-Dataset fMRI Decoding

Abstract

Visual decoding from fMRI is typically siloed by participant and experiment, obscuring whether heterogeneous neural measurements can be organized within a common computational geometry. Here we introduce BRAID-fMRI (Brain Representation Alignment across Individuals and Datasets), a shared CLIP-supervised decoding framework. BRAID-fMRI uses a single ROI-wise Transformer with optional participant conditioning across eight visual-fMRI datasets comprising 93 dataset-specific participant entries, 430,007 single-trial responses and 162,839 unique stimuli. Regional brain activity is aligned with 512-dimensional CLIP ViT-B/32 representations using a multi-positive contrastive objective that treats repeated stimuli across participants and datasets as positives. BRAID-fMRI supports retrieval across seven evaluation datasets. On eight matched participant entries, it achieves 35.0 +/- 11.1% Top-10 accuracy, exceeding the observed mean accuracy of the two evaluated baselines - the MindEye-style pooled-CLIP decoder (27.1 +/- 5.1%) and ridge regression (21.1 +/- 9.1%) - and attaining the highest observed accuracy for seven of eight entries. In separately trained participant-agnostic models, expanding the source pool increased target-dataset holdout accuracy by up to 92.1% relative to the initial source-training condition. The learned space preserves graded semantic structure, while ablations and saliency highlight ventral and early visual cortex and category-specific motion and attentional systems. These results support scalable cross-dataset decoding into a common CLIP-aligned space, with model sensitivity concentrated in ventral and early visual inputs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Moein Khajehnejad, Michelangelo Tronti, Forough Habibollahi, Tommaso Boccato, Matteo Ferrante, Nicola Toschi. 2026-10-07. Many Brains, One Geometry: A Shared Visual-Semantic Space for Cross-Dataset fMRI Decoding. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.09352

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Harnessing the Power of AI in Qualitative Research: Role Assignment, Engagement, and User Perceptions of AI-Generated Follow-Up Questions in Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews highly rely on the quality of follow-up questions, yet interviewers' knowledge and skills may limit their depth and potentially affect outcomes. While many studies have shown the usefulness of large language models (LLMs) for qualitative analysis, their possibility in the data collection process remains underexplored. We adopt an AI-driven "Wizard-of-Oz" setup to investigate how real-time LLM support in generating follow-up questions shapes semi-structured interviews. Through a study with 17 participants, we examine the value of LLM-generated follow-up questions, the evolving division of roles, relationships, collaborative behaviors, and responsibilities between interviewers and AI. Our findings (1) provide empirical evidence of the strengths and limitations of AI-generated follow-up questions (AGQs); (2) introduce a Human-AI collaboration framework in this interview context; and (3) propose human-centered design guidelines for AI-assisted interviewing. We position LLMs as complements, not replacements, to human judgment, and highlight pathways for integrating AI into qualitative data collection.

cs.HC↗

An LLM-Native Psychometric Instrument Reveals a Self-Report--Behavior Gap Across 25 Models

Do large language models' (LLMs') answers to self-report questionnaires predict how they behave? Prior work finds they do not, but it uses human personality inventories, so the gap could reflect borrowed human constructs rather than LLM self-report itself. We test this with a self-report instrument built from LLM-specific behaviors (e.g., over-refusal, unsolicited disclaimers) whose structure is derived bottom-up. Administering 300 items 30 times to 25 LLMs from 17 developers yields five replicable, reliable factors (Tucker $ϕ\geq .957$, $α\geq .930$). We compare these self-reports with 2,500 open-ended behavioral samples rated by 151 humans and an LLM-judge ensemble. Humans and judges agree about model behavior ($\bar{r} = .51$), but self-report barely tracks human ratings ($\bar{r} = .09$, 95% CI $[-.07, .18]$) or rater-free text measures, and correcting for criterion unreliability leaves four of five factors near zero. Verbosity is the partial exception ($r = .40$, 71% of its reliability ceiling). On Responsiveness, self-report tracks LLM judges more than humans ($r = .53$ vs. $.18$; Steiger $p = .04$), and controlling for length and formatting does not remove this: agreement between LLM judges and LLM self-report is weak evidence that either tracks human judgment.

cs.HC↗

DataCanvas-EDU: An Agentic Framework for Instructor-Guided Synthetic Data Generation in Business Analytics Education

Business analytics education requires diverse datasets to support different learning objectives, student backgrounds, and analytical tasks. Real-world data can be difficult to obtain and offer limited flexibility for adapting a case to a particular course. Even when suitable data are available, instructors must investigate the patterns, verify the results, and prepare assignments and reference solutions, requiring substantial time and effort. The use of large language models (LLMs) introduces an additional concern about training data contamination. Widely used public datasets often have extensive tutorials and worked analyses that models may have encountered during training. Students may therefore receive explanations drawn from existing analyses without practicing how to investigate unfamiliar data in collaboration with AI. This paper presents DataCanvas-EDU, an agentic framework for instructor-guided synthetic data generation in business analytics education. Instructors specify teaching goals and intended patterns through conversation, while an AI agent writes generation code, checks the resulting data, and prepares assignments, reference analyses, and rubrics. Four phases, Plan, Create, Verify / Test Analysis, and Evaluate, organize the process and support instructor review and revision. The framework is intended to simplify case preparation while creating opportunities for students to investigate newly designed patterns with AI. We illustrate the approach with WindowDash, a food delivery case containing 15,000 orders and nine designed patterns. DataCanvas-EDU is packaged as a reusable AI Agent Skill for compatible agent environments, with the package and installation instructions available at https://github.com/BANG23333/datacanvas-edu

cs.HC↗