Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

elehman839 t1_jdollr0 wrote

If anyone cares: I found Appendix B, but there wasn't much more helpful information. In particular, I don't understand how the randomly-generated images in their evaluation process were produced. And, as far as I can tell, the significance of the paper comes down to that detail.

  • If the randomly-generated images were systematically defective in any way, then the 80% result is meaningless.
  • On the other hand, if these randomly-generated images are fairly close to the image shown to the person in the fMRI-- but just differing in some subtle ways-- then 80% would be absolutely amazing.

Sooo... I think there's something moderately cool here, but I don't see a way to conclude more (or less) from than that from their paper. Frustrating. :-/

2

The_One_Who_Slays t1_jdoodjv wrote

Yeah, some public trials would come in handy there. Show, don't tell, and all that.

1