A framework for streamlining research workflow in neuroscience and psychology

Frontiers in Neuroinformatics

Volumn 7, Issue JAN, 2014, Pages

  Kubilius, Jonas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Collaboration; fMRI; MVPA; Neuroscience; Psychophysics; Python; Reproducibility; Vision

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DATA ANALYSIS; DOCUMENTATION; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INSTALLATION; INTEGRATION; LICENCE; NEUROINFORMATICS; NEUROSCIENCE; PACKAGING; PHILOSOPHY; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCOPE AND AUDIENCE; SIMULATION; STABILITY; STIMULUS; WORKFLOW;

EID: 84903125678     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16625196     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fninf.2013.00052     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ashburner, J., and Friston, K. J. (2005). Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 26, 839-851. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018
2. Barnes, N. (2010). Publish your computer code: it is good enough. Nat. News 467, 753-753. doi: 10.1038/467753a
3. Cox, R. W. (1996). AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput. Biomed. Res. 29, 162-173. doi: 10.1006/cbmr.1996.0014
4. Davison, A. (2012). Automated capture of experiment context for easier reproducibility in computational research. Comput. Sci. Eng. 14, 48-56. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2012.41
5. Gorgolewski, K., Madison, C., Clark, D., Halchenko, Y. O., Waskom, M. L., and Ghosh, S. S. (2011). Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in Python. Front. Neuroinform. 5:13. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2011.00013
6. Halchenko, Y. O., and Hanke, M. (2012). Open is not enough. Let's take the next step: an integrated, community-driven computing platform for neuroscience. Front. Neuroinform. 6:22. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2012.00022
7. Hanke, M., Halchenko, Y., Sederberg, P., Hanson, S., Haxby, J., and Pollmann, S. (2009). PyMVPA: a Python toolbox for multivariate pattern analysis of fMRI data. Neuroinformatics 7, 37-53. doi: 10.1007/s12021-008-9041-y
8. Ince, D. C., Hatton, L., and Graham-Cumming, J. (2012). The case for open computer programs. Nature 482, 485-488. doi: 10.1038/nature10836
9. Joppa, L. N., McInerny, G., Harper, R., Salido, L., Takeda, K., O'Hara, K., et al. (2013). Troubling trends in scientific software use. Science 340, 814-815. doi: 10.1126/science.1231535
10. Kampstra, P. (2008). Beanplot: a boxplot alternative for visual comparison of distributions. J. Stat. Softw. 28, 1-9. Available online at: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v28/c01
11. Kubilius, J. (2013). The Open Science Cycle. Available online at: http://figshare.com/articles/The_Open_Science_Cycle_July_2013/751548
12. Kubilius, J., Wagemans, J., and Op de Beeck, H. P. (2011). Emergence of perceptual gestalts in the human visual cortex: the case of the configural-superiority effect. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1296-1303. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417000
13. Lades, M., Vorbruggen, J. C., Buhmann, J., Lange, J., von der Malsburg, C., Wurtz, R. P., et al. (1993). Distortion invariant object recognition in the dynamic link architecture. IEEE Trans. Comput. 42, 300-311. doi: 10.1109/12.2 10173
14. Op de Beeck, H., Wagemans, J., andVogels, R. (2001). Inferotemporal neurons represent low-dimensional configurations of parameterized shapes. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 1244-1252. doi: 10.1038/nn767
15. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., et al. (2011). Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825-2830. Available online at: http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html
16. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy-Psychophysics software in Python. J. Neurosci. Methods 162, 8-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
17. Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Front. Neuroinform. 2:10. doi: 10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008
18. Perez, F., and Granger, B. E. (2007). IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 21-29. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53
19. Riesenhuber, M., and Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2, 1019-1025. doi: 10.1038/14819
20. Stevens, J. R., Elver, M., and Bednar, J. A. (2013). An automated and reproducible workflow for running and analyzing neural simulations using Lancet and IPython Notebook. Front. Neuroinform. 7:44. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2013. 00044
21. Wallis, T. S., Taylor, C. P., Wallis, J., Jackson, M. L., and Bex, P. J. (2014). Characterisation of field loss based on microperimetry is predictive of face recognition difficulties. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 142-153. doi: 10.1167/ iovs.13-12420
22. White, E. P., Baldridge, E., Brym, Z. T., Locey, K. J., McGlinn, D. J., and Supp, S. R. (2013). Nine simple ways to make it easier to (re) use your data. Peer J PrePrints 1:e7v2. doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.7v2
23. Wilson, G., Aruliah, D. A., Brown, C. T., Hong, N. P. C., Davis, M., Guy, R. T., et al. (2012). Best Practices for Scientific Computing (arXiv e-print No. 1210.0530). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.0530
24. Xu, X., Yue, X., Lescroart, M. D., Biederman, I., and Kim, J. G. (2009). Adaptation in the fusiform face area (FFA): image or person? Vision Res. 49, 2800-2807. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.021