Domains featuring this topic
Explore the domains where this topic appears.
Trends in NeuroAI - SwiFT: Swin 4D fMRI Transformer
Trends in NeuroAI is a reading group hosted by the MedARC Neuroimaging & AI lab (https://medarc.ai/fmri). Title: SwiFT: Swin 4D fMRI Transformer Abstract: Modeling spatiotemporal brain dynamics from high-dimensional data, such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), is a formidable task in neuroscience. Existing approaches for fMRI analysis utilize hand-crafted features, but the process of feature extraction risks losing essential information in fMRI scans. To address this challenge, we present SwiFT (Swin 4D fMRI Transformer), a Swin Transformer architecture that can learn brain dynamics directly from fMRI volumes in a memory and computation-efficient manner. SwiFT achieves this by implementing a 4D window multi-head self-attention mechanism and absolute positional embeddings. We evaluate SwiFT using multiple large-scale resting-state fMRI datasets, including the Human Connectome Project (HCP), Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD), and UK Biobank (UKB) datasets, to predict sex, age, and cognitive intelligence. Our experimental outcomes reveal that SwiFT consistently outperforms recent state-of-the-art models. Furthermore, by leveraging its end-to-end learning capability, we show that contrastive loss-based self-supervised pre-training of SwiFT can enhance performance on downstream tasks. Additionally, we employ an explainable AI method to identify the brain regions associated with sex classification. To our knowledge, SwiFT is the first Swin Transformer architecture to process dimensional spatiotemporal brain functional data in an end-to-end fashion. Our work holds substantial potential in facilitating scalable learning of functional brain imaging in neuroscience research by reducing the hurdles associated with applying Transformer models to high-dimensional fMRI. Speaker: Junbeom Kwon is a research associate working in Prof. Jiook Cha’s lab at Seoul National University. Paper link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05916
Biology is “messy”. So how can we take theory in biology seriously and plot predictions and experiments on the same axes?
Many of us came to biology from physics. There we have been trained on such classic examples as muon g-2, where experimental data and theoretical predictions agree to many significant digits. Now, working in biology, we routinely hear that it is messy, most details matter, and that the best hope for theory in biology is to be semi-qualitative, predict general trends, and to forgo the hope of ever making quantitative predictions with the precision that we are used to in physics. Colloquially, we should be satisfied even if data and models differ so much that plotting them on the same plot makes little sense. However, some of us won’t be satisfied by this. So can we take theory in biology seriously and predict experimental outcomes within (small) error bars? Certainly, we won’t be able to predict everything, but this is never required, even in traditional physics. But we should be able to choose some features of data that are nontrivial and interesting, and focus on them. We also should be able to find different classes of models --- maybe even null models --- that match biology better, and thus allow for a better agreement. It is even possible that large-dimensional datasets of modern high-throughput experiments, and the ensuing “more is different” statistical physics style models will make quantitative, precise theory easier. To explore the role of quantitative theory in biology, in this workshop, eight speakers will address some of the following general questions based on their specific work in different corners of biology: Which features of biological data are predictable? Which types of models are best suited to making quantitative predictions in different fields? Should theorists interested in quantitative predictions focus on different questions, not typically asked by biologists? Do large, multidimensional datasets make theories (and which theories?) more or less likely to succeed? This will be an unapologetically theoretical physics workshop — we won’t focus on a specific subfield of biology, but will explore these questions across the fields, hoping that the underlying theoretical frameworks will help us find the missing connections.