# Beyond linear regression: mapping models in cognitive neuroscience should align with research goals

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.10668 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10668/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2022.

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Deep Neural Networks and Brain Alignment: Brain Encoding and Decoding (Survey)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10246/) (2023)
- [How Causal Abstraction Underpins Computational Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.11214/) (2025)
- [Transformer brain encoders explain human high-level visual responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17329/) (2025)
- [Mapping Brains with Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05126/) (2023)
- [BrainWavLM: Fine-tuning Speech Representations with Brain Responses to Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08866/) (2025)
- [Emergent Symbol-like Number Variables in Artificial Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.06141/) (2025)
- [Multilevel Interpretability Of Artificial Neural Networks: Leveraging Framework And Methods From Neuroscience](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12664/) (2024)
- [How does the primate brain combine generative and discriminative computations in vision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06005/) (2024)
- [Modeling the Human Visual System: Comparative Insights from Response-Optimized and Task-Optimized Vision Models, Language Models, and different Readout Mechanisms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14031/) (2024)
- [MIRAGE: Adaptive Multimodal Gating for Whole-Brain fMRI Encoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29850/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Many cognitive neuroscience studies use large feature sets to predict and interpret brain activity patterns. Feature sets take many forms, from human stimulus annotations to representations in deep neural networks. Of crucial importance in all these studies is the mapping model, which defines the space of possible relationships between features and neural data. Until recently, most encoding and decoding studies have used linear mapping models. Increasing availability of large datasets and computing resources has recently allowed some researchers to employ more flexible nonlinear mapping models instead; however, the question of whether nonlinear mapping models can yield meaningful scientific insights remains debated. Here, we discuss the choice of a mapping model in the context of three overarching desiderata: predictive accuracy, interpretability, and biological plausibility. We show that, contrary to popular intuition, these desiderata do not map cleanly onto the linear/nonlinear divide; instead, each desideratum can refer to multiple research goals, each of which imposes its own constraints on the mapping model. Moreover, we argue that, instead of categorically treating the mapping models as linear or nonlinear, we should instead aim to estimate the complexity of these models. We show that, in many cases, complexity provides a more accurate reflection of restrictions imposed by various research goals. Finally, we outline several complexity metrics that can be used to effectively evaluate mapping models.