Mapping patterns of thought onto brain activity during movie-watching

  1. Raven S Wallace
  2. Brontë Mckeown
  3. Ian Goodall-Halliwell
  4. Louis Chitiz
  5. Philippe Forest
  6. Theodoros Karapanagiotidis
  7. Bridget Mulholland
  8. Adam G Turnbull
  9. Tamera Vanderwal
  10. Samyogita Hardikar
  11. Tirso Gonzalez Alam
  12. Boris Bernhardt
  13. Hao-Ting Wang
  14. Will Strawson
  15. Michael Milham
  16. Ting Xu
  17. Daniel Margulies
  18. Giulia L Poerio
  19. Elizabeth Jefferies
  20. Jeremy I Skipper
  21. Jeffery Wammes
  22. Robert Leech
  23. Jonathan Smallwood

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife Assessment

    This study presents a valuable methodological advancement in quantifying thoughts over time. A novel multi-dimensional experience-sampling approach is presented, identifying data-driven patterns that the authors use to interrogate fMRI data collected during naturalistic movie-watching. The experimentation is inventive and the analyses carried out are convincing.

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Movie-watching is a central aspect of our lives and an important paradigm for understanding the brain mechanisms behind cognition as it occurs in daily life. Contemporary views of ongoing thought argue that the ability to make sense of events in the ‘here and now’ depend on the neural processing of incoming sensory information by auditory and visual cortex, which are kept in check by systems in association cortex. However, we currently lack an understanding of how patterns of ongoing thoughts map onto the different brain systems when we watch a film, partly because methods of sampling experience disrupt the dynamics of brain activity and the experience of movie-watching. Our study established a novel method for mapping thought patterns onto the brain activity that occurs at different moments of a film, which does not disrupt the time course of brain activity or the movie-watching experience. We found moments when experience sampling highlighted engagement with multi-sensory features of the film or highlighted thoughts with episodic features, regions of sensory cortex were more active and subsequent memory for events in the movie was better—on the other hand, periods of intrusive distraction emerged when activity in regions of association cortex within the frontoparietal system was reduced. These results highlight the critical role sensory systems play in the multi-modal experience of movie-watching and provide evidence for the role of association cortex in reducing distraction when we watch films.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7554/elife.97731.2 on eLife
  2. Version published to 10.7554/elife.97731 on eLife
  3. eLife

    eLife Assessment

    This study presents a valuable methodological advancement in quantifying thoughts over time. A novel multi-dimensional experience-sampling approach is presented, identifying data-driven patterns that the authors use to interrogate fMRI data collected during naturalistic movie-watching. The experimentation is inventive and the analyses carried out are convincing.

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public review):

    Summary:

    The authors used a novel multi-dimensional experience sampling (mDES) approach to identify data-driven patterns of experience samples that they use to interrogate fMRI data collected during naturalistic movie-watching data. They identify a set of multi-sensory features of a set of movies that delineate low-dimensional gradients of BOLD fMRI signal patterns that have previously been linked to fundamental axes of cortical organization.

    Strengths:

    * The novel solution to challenges associated with experience sampling offer potential access to aspects of experience that have been challenging to assess.

    Weaknesses:

    * The lack of direct interrogation of individual differences/reliability of the mDES scores warrants some pause.

  5. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public review):

    Summary:

    The present study explores how thoughts map onto brain activity, a notoriously challenging question because of the dynamic, subjective, and abstract nature of thoughts. To tackle this question, the authors collected continuous thought ratings from participants watching a movie, and additionally made use of an open-source fMRI dataset recorded during movie watching as well as five established gradients of brain variation as identified in resting state data. Using a voxel-space approach, the results show that episodic knowledge, verbal detail, and sensory engagement of thoughts commonly modulate visual and auditory cortex, while intrusive distraction modulates the frontoparietal network. Additionally, sensory engagement mapped onto a gradient from primary to association cortex, while episodic knowledge mapped onto a gradient from the dorsal attention network to visual cortex. Building on the association between behavioral performance and neural activation, the authors conclude that sensory coupling to external input and frontoparietal executive control are key to comprehension in naturalistic settings.

    The manuscript stands out for its methodological advancements in quantifying thoughts over time and its aim to study the implementation of thoughts in the brain during naturalistic movie watching. However, the conceptualization of thoughts remains vague, limiting the study's insights into brain function.

    Strengths:

    (1) The study raises a question that has been difficult to study in naturalistic settings so far but is key to understanding human cognition, namely how thoughts map onto brain activation.
    (2) The thought ratings introduce a novel method for continuously tracking thoughts, promising utility beyond this study.
    (3) The authors used diverse data types, metrics, and analyses to substantiate the effects of thinking from multiple perspectives.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) The distinction between thinking and stimulus processing (in the sense of detecting and assigning meaning to features, modulated by factors such as attention) remains unclear. Is "thinking" a form of conscious access or a reportable read-out from sensory and higher-level stimulus processing? Or does it simply refer to the method used here to identify different processing states?
    (2) The dimensions of thought appear to be directly linked to brain areas traditionally associated with core faculties of perception and cognition. For example, superior temporal cortex codes for speech information, which is also where thought reports on verbal detail localize in this study. This raises the question of whether the present study truly captures mechanisms specific to thinking and distinct from processing, especially given that individual variations in reports were not considered and movie-specific features were not controlled for.

  6. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public review):

    This study attempted to investigate the relations between processing in the human brain during movie watching and corresponding thought processes. This is a highly interesting question, as movie watching presents a semi-constrained task, combining naturally occurring thoughts and common processing of sensory inputs across participants. This task is inherently difficult because in order to know what participants are thinking at any given moment, one has to interrupt the same thought process which is the object of study.

    This study attempts to deal with this issue by aggregating staggered experience sampling data across participants in one behavioral study and using the population level thought patterns to model brain activity in different participants in an open access fMRI dataset.

    The behavioral data consist of 120 participants who watched 3 11-minute movie clips. Participants responded to the mDES questionnaire: 16 visual scales characterizing ongoing thought 5 times, two minutes apart, in each clip. The 16 items are first reduced to 4 factors using PCA, and their levels are compared across the different movies. The factors are "episodic knowledge", "intrusive distraction", "verbal detail", and "sensory engagement". The factors differ between the clips, and distraction is negatively correlated with movie comprehension and sensory engagement is positively correlated with comprehension.

    The components are aggregated across participants (transforming single subject mDES answers into PCA space and concatenating responses of different participants) and are used as regressors in a GLM analysis. This analysis identifies brain regions corresponding to the components. The resulting brain maps reveal activations that are consistent with the proposed mental processes (e.g. negative loading for intrusion in frontoparietal network, positive loadings for visual and auditory cortices for sensory engagement).

    Then, the coordinates for brain regions which were significant for more than one component are entered into a paper search in neurosynth. It is not clear what this analysis demonstrates beyond the fact that sensory engagement contained both visual and auditory components.

    The next analysis projected group-averaged brain activation onto gradients (based on previous work) and used gradient timecourses to predict the behavioral report timecourses. This revealed that high activations in gradient 1 (sensory→association) predicted high sensory engagement, and that "episodic knowledge" thought patterns were predicted by increased visual cortex activations. Then, permutation tests were performed to see whether these thought pattern related activations corresponded to well defined regions on a given cluster.

    This paper is framed as presenting a new paradigm but it does little to discuss what this paradigm serves, what are its limitations and how it should have been tested. The novelty appears to be in using experience sampling from 1 sample to model the responses of a second sample.

    What are the considerations for treating high-order thought patterns that occur during film viewing as stable enough to use across participants? What would be the limitations of this method? (Do all people reading this paper think comparable thoughts reading through the sections?) This is briefly discussed in the revised manuscript and generally treated as an opportunity rather than as a limitation.

    In conclusion, this study tackles a highly interesting subject and does it creatively and expertly. It fails to discuss and establish the utility and appropriateness of its proposed method.

  7. eLife

    Author response:

    The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

    Recommendations For The Authors:

    Reviewer #1:

    ● It might help the reader if you make it explicit that mDES allows you to create an approximate amalgam of different kinds of experiences by assuming that, across individuals, there is a general consensus of experiences at particular points in the movie. Whether this assumption is an accurate reflection of the way in which each individual's brain is an important, testable prediction that could be discussed/examined in different projects. For instance, in other projects there are clear idiosyncratic responses to the same naturalistic stimuli: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064646/.

    Thank you, this is an excellent point. We have included this article in our revision and expanded on the introduction to emphasize how this study relates to our work. Additionally, we have included an additional figure that helps illustrate how mDES can be used to evaluate the idiosyncrasy for each respective thought component to visually display the variance across moments in the film:

    Page 6-7 [137-148] In our study, we used multi-dimensional experience sampling (mDES) to describe ongoing thought patterns during the movie-watching experience [8]. mDES is an experience sampling method that identifies different features of thought by probing participants about multiple dimensions of their experiences. mDES can provide a description of a person’s thoughts, generating reliable thought patterns across laboratory cognitive tasks [22, 32, 33] and in daily life [34, 35], and is sensitive to accompanying changes in brain activity [24, 36]. Studies that use mDES to describe experience ask participants to provide experiential reports by answering a set of questions about different features of their thought on a continuous scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely) [24, 32-41]. Each question describes a different feature of experience such as if their thoughts are oriented in the future or the past, about oneself or other people, deliberate or intrusive in nature, and more (See methods for a full list of questions used in the current study).

    ● A cartoon describing the mDES technique could be helpful for uninitiated readers.

    Thank you for your suggestion, we have added an additional figure (Figure 3) that illustrates the process of mDES in the laboratory during this experiment, clarifying that participants answer mDES items using a slider to indicate their score (rather than expressing it verbally).

    ● Did the authors check for any measures of reliability across mDES estimates other than split-half reliability? For instance, the authors could demonstrate construct validity by showing that engagement with certain features of the thought-sampling space aligned with specific points in the movies. If so, the start of the Results section would be a great place to demonstrate the reliability of the approach. For instance, did any two participants sample the same 15-second window of time in a particular stimulus? If so, you could compare their experience samples to determine whether the method was extensible across subjects.

    This is a great point, thank you very much for highlighting this. We have eight individuals at each time point in our analysis, which is probably not enough to calculate meaningful reliability measures. However, we have added a time series analysis of experience in each clip to our revision (Figure 3). In these time plots, it is possible to see clear moments in the film in which scores do not straddle 0 (using 95% CI), and often, these persist across successive moments (Figure 3; see time-series plot four for the clearest example). When the confidence intervals of a sampling epoch do not overlap with zero, this suggests a high degree of agreement in thought content across participants. At the same time, our analysis shows that individual differences do exist since the relative presence of each component for each participant was linked to objective measures of movie watching (in this case, comprehension). In this revision we have specifically addressed this question by conducting ANOVAs to determine how scores on each component across the clip (See also supplementary table 11). This additional analysis shows that mDES effectively captures shared aspects of movie-watching and is also sensitive to individual variation (since it can describe individual differences).

    Page 15 [304-323]: Next, we examined how each pattern of thought changes across each movie clip. For this analysis, we conducted separate ANOVA for each film clip for the four components (see Table 1 and Figure 3). Clear dynamic changes were observed in several components for different films. We analyzed these data using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in which the time in each clip were explanatory variables of interest. This identified significant change in “Episodic Social Cognition” scores across Little Miss Sunshine, F(1, 712) = 10.80, p = .001, , η2 = .03, and Citizenfour, F(1, 712) = 5.23, p = .023, , η2 = .02. There were also significant change in “Verbal Detail” scores across Little Miss Sunshine, F(1, 712) = 31.79, p <.001, η2 = .09. Lastly, there were significant changes in “Sensory Engagement” scores for both Citizenfour, F(1, 712) = 6.22, p = .013, η2 = .02, and 500 Days of Summer, F(1, 706) = 80.41, p <.001, η2 = .18. These time series are plotted in Figure 3 and highlight how mDES can capture the dynamics of different types of experience across the three movie clips. Moreover, in several of these time series plots, it is clear that thought patterns reported extend beyond adjacent time periods (e.g. scores above zero between time periods 150 to 400 for Sensory Engagement in 500 days of Summer and for time periods between 175 and 225 for Verbal Detail in Little Miss Sunshine). It is important to note that no participant completed experience sampling reports during adjacent sampling points (see Supplementary Figure 7), so the length of these intervals indicates agreement in how specific scenes within a film were experienced and conserved across different individuals. Notably, the component with the least evidence for temporal dynamics was “Intrusive Distraction.”

    ● P10: "Generation of the thought-space" - how stable are these word clouds to individual subjects? If there are subject-specific differences, are there ways to account for this with some form of normalization?

    Thank you for bringing up this point. Our current goal was to show how the average experience of one group of participants relates to the brain activity of a second group. In this regard it is important to seek the patterns of similarity across individuals in how they experience the film. However, as is normal in our studies using mDES, we can also use the variation from the mean to predict other cognitive measures and, in this way, account for the variability that individuals have in their movie-watching experience. In other words, the word clouds reflect the mean of a particular dimension, so when an individual score is close to 0, their thought content does not align with this dimension -- however, deviating scores, positive or negative, indicating that this dimension provides meaningful information about the individual's experience. Evidence of the meaningful nature of this variation can be seen in the links between the reported thoughts and the individuals’ comprehension (e.g. individuals whose thoughts do not contain strong evidence of “Intrusive Distraction”, or in other words, a negative score, tended to do better on comprehension tests of information in the movies they watched).

    ● P11: "Variation in thought patterns" - can the authors use a null model here to demonstrate that the associations they've observed would occur above chance levels (e.g., for a comparison of time series with similar temporal autocorrelation but non-preserved semantic structure)? Further, were there any pre-defined hypotheses over whether any of the three different movies would engage any of the 4 observed dimensions?

    This is a great point. We chose to sample from three distinctly different films to help us understand if mDES was sensitive to different semantic and affective features of films. Our analysis, therefore, shows that at a broad level, mDES is able to discriminate between films, highlighting its broad sensitivity to variation in semantic or affective content. Armed with this knowledge, researchers in the future could derive mechanistic insights into how the semantic features may influence the mDES data. For example, future studies could ask participants to watch movies in a scrambled order to understand how varying the structure of semantics or information breaks the mapping between brains and ongoing experience. In this revision we have amended the text to reflect this possibility:

    Page 34 [674-679]. Our analysis shows that mDES is able to discriminate between films, highlighting its broad sensitivity to variation in semantic or affective content. Armed with this knowledge, we propose that in the future, researchers could derive mechanistic insights into how the semantic features may influence the mDES data. For example, it may be possible to ask participants to watch movies in a scrambled order to understand how the structure of semantic or information influences the mapping between brains and ongoing experience as measured by mDES.

    ● P14: "Brain - Thought Mappings: Voxel-space Analysis" - this is a cool analysis, and a nice validation of the authors' approach. I would personally love to see some form of reliability analysis on these approaches - e.g., do the same locations in the cerebral cortex align with the four features in all three movies? Across subjects?

    This is another great point, and we thank you for your enthusiasm. The data we have has only sampled mDES during a relatively short period of brain activity which we suspect would make an individual-by-individual analysis underpowered. In the future, however, it may be possible to adopt a precision mapping approach in which we sample mDES during longer periods of movie watching and identify how group-level mappings of experience relate to brain activity within a single subject. To reflect this possibility, we have amended the text in this revision in the following way:

    Page 34-35 [672-687]: In addition, our study is correlational in nature, and in the future, it could be useful to generate a more mechanistic understanding of how brain activity maps onto the participants' experience. Our analysis shows that mDES is able to discriminate between films, highlighting its broad sensitivity to variation in semantic or affective content. Armed with this knowledge, we propose that in the future, researchers could derive mechanistic insights into how the semantic features may influence the mDES data. For example, it may be possible to ask participants to watch movies in a scrambled order to understand how the structure of semantic or information influences the mapping between brains and ongoing experience as measured by mDES. Finally, our study focused on mapping group-level patterns of experience onto group-level descriptions of brain activity. In the future, it may be possible to adopt a “precision-mapping” approach by measuring longer periods of experience using mDES and determining how the neural correlates of experience vary across individuals who watched the same movies while brain activity was collected [1]. In the future, we anticipate that the ease with which our method can be applied to different groups of individuals and different types of media will make it possible to build a more comprehensive and culturally inclusive understanding of the links between brain activity and movie-watching experience

    Reviewer #2:

    (1) The three-dimensional scatter plot in Figure 2 does not represent "Intrusive Distraction." Would it make sense to color-code dots by this important dimension?

    Thank you for this suggestion. Although it could be possible to indicate the location of each film in all four dimensions, we were worried that this would make the already complex 3-D space confusing to a naive reader. In this case, we prefer to provide this information in the form of bar graphs, as we did in the previous submission.

    (2) The coloring of neural activation patterns in Figure 3 is not distinct enough between the different dimensions of thought. Please reconsider color intensities or coding. The same applies to the left panel in Figure 4.

    Thanks for this comment; we found it quite difficult to find a colour mapping that allows us to show the distinction between four states in a simple manner, yet we believe it is valuable to show all of the results on a similar brain. Nonetheless, to provide a more fine-grained viewing of our results in this revision we have provided a supplementary figure (Supplementary Figure 6) that shows each of the observed patterns of activity in isolation.

    (3) The new method (mDES) is mentioned too often without explanation, making it hard to follow without referring to the methods section. It would be helpful to state prominently that participants rated their thoughts on different dimensions instead of verbalizing them.

    Thank you for this point, we have adjusted the Introduction to clarify and expand on the mDES method. We have also included an example of the mDES method in an additional figure that we have now included to visually express how participants respond to mDES probes (Figure 3).

    Page 6-7 [136-148]: In our study, we used multi-dimensional experience sampling (mDES) to describe ongoing thought patterns during the movie-watching experience [2]. mDES is an experience sampling method that identifies different features of thought by probing participants about multiple dimensions of their experiences. mDES can provide a description of a person’s thoughts, generating reliable thought patterns across laboratory cognitive tasks [3-5] and in daily life [6, 7], and is sensitive to accompanying changes in brain activity when reports are gained during scanning [8, 9]. Studies that use mDES to describe experience ask participants to provide experiential reports by answering a set of questions about different features of their thought on a continuous scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (Completely) [3, 5-14]. Each question describes a different feature of experience, such as if their thoughts are oriented in the future or the past, about oneself or other people, deliberate or intrusive in nature, and more (See Methods for a full list of questions used in the current study).

    Author response image 1.

    (4) Reporting of single-movie thought patterns seems quite extensive. Could this be condensed in the main text?

    Thank you for this point, upon re-visiting the manuscript, we have adjusted the text to be more concise.

    Reviewer #3:

    ● This is a very elegant experiment and seems like a very promising approach. The text is currently hard to read.

    Thank you for this point, we have since revisited the text and adjusted the manuscript to be more concise and add more clarity.

    ● The introduction (+ analysis goals) fails to explain the basic aspects of the analysis and dataset. It is not clear how many participants and datapoints were used to establish the group-level thought patterns, nor is it entirely clear that the fMRI data is a separate existing dataset. Some terms are introduced and highlighted and never revisited (e.g decoupled states and the role of the DMN).

    Thank you for this critique, we have since adjusted the introduction to clearly explain the difference between Sample 1 and Sample 2 and further clarify that the fMRI data is an entirely separate, independent sample compared to the laboratory mDES sample:

    Page 7-8 [158-174]: Thus, to overcome this obstacle, we developed a novel methodological approach using two independent sample participants. In the current study, one set of 120 participants was probed with mDES five times across the three ten-minute movie clips (11 minutes total, no sampling in the first minute). We used a jittered sampling technique where probes were delivered at different intervals across the film for different people depending on the condition they were assigned. Probe orders were also counterbalanced to minimize the systematic impact of prior and later probes at any given sampling moment. We used these data to construct a precise description of the dynamics of experience for every 15 seconds of three ten-minute movie clips. These data were then combined with fMRI data from a different sample of 44 participants who had already watched these clips without experience sampling [15]. By combining data from two different groups of participants, our method allows us to describe the time series of different experiential states (as defined by mDES) and relate these to the time series of brain activity in another set of participants who watched the same films with no interruptions. In this way, our study set out to explicitly understand how the patterns of thoughts that dominate different moments in a film in one group of participants relate to the brain activity at these time points in a second set of participants and, therefore, better understand the contribution of different neural systems to the movie-watching experience.

    Page 8-9 [177-188] The goal of our study, therefore, was to understand the association between patterns of brain activity over time during movie clips in one group of participants and the patterns of thought that participants reported at the corresponding moment in a different set of participants (see Figure 1). This can be conceptualized as identifying the mapping between two multi-dimensional spaces, one reflecting the time series of brain activity and the other describing the time series of ongoing experience (see Figure 1 right-hand panel). In our study, we selected three 11-minute clips from movies (Citizenfour, Little Miss Sunshine and 500 Days of Summer) for which recordings of brain data in fMRI already existed (n = 44) [15] (Figure 1, Sample 1). A second set of participants (n = 120) viewed the same movie clips, providing intermittent reports on their thought patterns using mDES (Figure 1, Sample 2). Our goal was to understand the mapping between the patterns of brain activity at each moment of the film and the reports of ongoing thought recorded at the same point in the movies.

    ● It is unclear what the utility of the method is - is it meant to be done in fMRI studies on the same participants? Or is the idea to use one sample to model another?

    Great point, thank you for highlighting this important question. This paper aimed to interrogate the relationship between experience and neural states while preserving the novelty of movie-watching. Although it could be done in the same sample, it may be difficult to collect frequent reports of experience without interrupting the dynamics of the brain. However, in the future it could be possible to collect mDES and brain activity in the same individuals while they watched movies. For example, our prior studies (e.g. [9]) where we combined mDES with openly-available brain data activity during tasks. In the future, this online method could also be applied during movie watching to identify direct mapping between brain activity and films. However, this online approach would make it very expensive to produce the time series of experience across each clip given that it would require a large number of participants (e.g. 200 as we used in our current study). The following has been included in our manuscript:

    Page 7 [149-159] One challenge that arises when attempting to map the dynamics of thought onto brain activity during movie watching is accounting for the inherently disruptive nature of experience sampling: to measure experience with sufficient frequency to map the dynamics of thoughts during movies would disrupt the natural dynamics of the brain and would also alter the viewer’s experience (for example, by pausing the film at a moment of suspense). Therefore, if we periodically interrupt viewers to acquire a description of their thoughts while recording brain activity, this could impact capturing important dynamic features of the brain. On the other hand, if we measured fMRI activity continuously over movie-watching (as is usually the case), we would lack the capacity to directly relate brain signals to the corresponding experiential states. Thus, to overcome this obstacle, we developed a novel methodological approach using two independent sample participants

    ● The conclusions currently read as somewhat trivial (e.g "Our study, therefore, establishes both sensory and association cortex as core features of the movie-watching experience", "Our study supports the hypothesis that perceptual coupling between the brain and external input is a core feature of how we make sense of events in movies").

    Thank you for this comment. In this revision we have attempted to extend the theoretical significance of our work in the discussion (for example, in contrasting the links between Intrusive distraction and the other components). To this end we have amended the text in this revision by including the following sections:

    Page 33-35 [654-687]: Importantly, our study provides a novel method for answering these questions and others regarding the brain basis of experiences during films that can be applied simply and cost-effectively. As we have shown mDES can be combined with existing brain activity allowing information about both brain activity and experience to be determined at a relatively low cost. For example, the cost-effective nature of our paradigm makes it an ideal way to explore the relationship between cognition and neural activity during movie-watching during different genres of film. In neuroimaging, conclusions are often made using one film in naturalistic paradigm studies [16]. Although the current study only used three movie clips, restraining our ability to form strong conclusions regarding how different patterns of thought relate to specific genres of film, in the future, it will be possible to map cognition across a more extensive set of movies and discern whether there are specific types of experience that different genres of films engage. One of the major strengths of our approach, therefore, is the ability to map thoughts across groups of participants across a wide range of movies at a relatively low cost.

    Nonetheless, this paradigm is not without limitations. This is the first study, as far as we know, that attempts to compare experiential reports in one sample of participants with brain activity in a second set of participants, and while the utility of this method enables us to understand the relationship between thought and brain activity during movies, it will be important to extend our analysis to mDES data during movie watching while brain activity is recorded. In addition, our study is correlational in nature, and in the future, it could be useful to generate a more mechanistic understanding of how brain activity maps onto the participants experience. Our analysis shows that mDES is able to discriminate between films, highlighting its broad sensitivity to variation in semantic or affective content. Armed with this knowledge, we propose that in the future, researchers could derive mechanistic insights into how the semantic features may influence the mDES data. For example, it may be possible to ask participants to watch movies in a scrambled order to understand how the structure of semantic or information influences the mapping between brains and ongoing experience as measured by mDES. Finally, our study focused on mapping group-level patterns of experience onto group-level descriptions of brain activity. In the future it may be possible to adopt a “precision-mapping” approach by measuring longer periods of experience using mDES and determining how the neural correlates of experience vary across individuals who watched the same movies while brain activity was collected [1]. In the future, we anticipate that the ease with which our method can be applied to different groups of individuals and different types of media will make it possible to build a more comprehensive and culturally inclusive understanding of the links between brain activity and movie-watching experience

    ● The beginning of the discussion is very clear and explains the study very well. Some of it could be brought up in the intro/analysis goal sections.

    Thank you for this comment, this is an excellent idea. We have revisited the introduction and analysis goals section to mirror this clarity across the manuscript.

    ● The different components are very interesting, and not entirely clear. Some examples in the text could help. Especially regarding your thought that verbal components would refer to a "decoupled" mental verbal analysis participants might be performing in their thoughts.

    Thank you for this point. We would prefer not to elaborate on this point since, at present, it would simply be conjecture based on our correlational design. However, we have included a section in the discussion which explains how, in principle, we would draw more mechanistic conclusions (for example, by shuffling the order of scenes in a movie as suggested by another reviewer). In the current revision, we have amended the text in the following way:

    Page 34 [674-679]: Our analysis shows that mDES is able to discriminate between films, highlighting its broad sensitivity to variation in semantic or affective content. Armed with this knowledge, we propose that in the future, researchers could derive mechanistic insights into how the semantic features may influence the mDES data. For example, it may be possible to ask participants to watch movies in a scrambled order to understand how the structure of semantic or information influences the mapping between brains and ongoing experience as measured by mDES

    ● The reference to using neurosynth as performing a meta-analysis seems a little stretched.

    We have adjusted the manuscript to remove ‘meta-analysis’ when referring to the analysis computed with neurosynth. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

    ● State-space is defined as brain-space in the methods.

    Thank you, we have since updated this.

    ● It could be useful to remind the reader what thought and brain spaces are at the top of the state-space results section.

    This is an excellent point, and it has since been updated to remind the reader of thought- and brain-space. Thank you for this comment.

    Page 24 [458-467]: Our next analysis used a “state-space” approach to determine how brain activity at each moment in the film predicted the patterns of thoughts reported at these moments (for prior examples in the domain of tasks, see [12, 17], See Methods). In this analysis, we used the coordinates of the group average of each TR in the “brain-space” and the coordinates of each experience sampling moment in the “thought-space.”. To clarify, the location of a moment in a film in “brain-space” is calculated by projecting the grand mean of brain activity for each volume of each film against the first five dimensions of brain activity from a decomposition of the Human Connectome Project (HCP) resting state data, referred to as Gradients 1-5. “Thought-space” is the decomposition of mDES items to create thought pattern components, referred to as “Episodic Knowledge”, “Intrusive Distraction”, “Verbal Detail” and “Sensory Engagement.”

    ● DF missing from the t-test for episodic knowledge/grad 4.

    Thank you for catching this, the degrees of freedom has since been included in this revision.

    Page 24 [474-476]: First, we found a significant main effect of Gradient 4 (DAN to Visual), which predicted the similarity of answers to the “Episodic Knowledge” component, t(2046) = 2.17, p = .013, η2 = .01.

    Public Reviews:

    Reviewer #1:

    ● The lack of direct interrogation of individual differences/reliability of the mDES scores warrants some pause.

    Our study's goal was to understand how group-level patterns of thought in one group of participants relate to brain activity in a different group of participants. To this end, we decomposed trial-level mDES data to show dimensions that are common across individuals, which demonstrated excellent split-half reliability. Then we used these data in two complementary ways. First, we established that these ratings reliably distinguished between the different films (showing that our approach is sensitive to manipulations of semantic and affective features in a film) and that these group-level patterns were also able to predict patterns of brain activity in a different group of participants (suggesting that mDES dimensions are also sensitive to broad differences in how brain activity emerges during movie watching). Second, we established that variation across individuals in their mDES scores predicted their comprehension of information from the films. This establishes that when applied to movie-watching, mDES is sensitive to individual differences in the movie-watching experience (as determined by an individual's comprehension). Given the success of this study and the relative ease with which mDES can be performed, it will be possible in the future to conduct mDES studies that hone in on the common and distinct features of the movie-watching experience.

    Reviewer #2:

    (1) The dimensions of thought seem to distinguish between sensory and executive processing states. However, it is unclear if this effect primarily pertains to thinking. I could imagine highly intrusive distractions in movie segments to correlate with stagnating plot development, little change in scenery, or incomprehensible events. Put differently, it may primarily be the properties of the movies that evoke different processing modes, but these properties are not accounted for. For example, I'm wondering whether a simple measure of engagement with stimulus materials could explain the effects just as much. How can the effects of thinking be distinguished from the perceptual and semantic properties of the movie, as well as attentional effects? Is the measure used here capturing thought processes beyond what other factors could explain?

    Our study used mDES to identify four distinct components of experience, each of which had distinct behavioural and neural correlates and relationships to comprehension. Together this makes it unlikely that a single measure of engagement would be able to capture the range of effects we observed in our study. For example, “Intrusive Distraction” was associated with regions of association cortex, while the other three components highlighted regions of sensory cortex. Behaviorally, we found that some components had a common effect on comprehension (e.g. “Intrusive distraction” was related to worse comprehension across all films), while others were linked to clear benefits to comprehension in specific films (e.g. “Episodic Knowledge” was associated with better comprehension in only one of the films). Given the complex nature of these effects, it would be difficult for a single metric of engagement to explain this pattern of results, and even if it did, this could be misleading because our analysis implies that they are better explained by a model of movie-watching experience in which there are several relatively orthogonal dimensions upon which our experience can vary.

    At the same time, we also found that films vary in the general types of experience they can engender. For example, Citizenfour was high on “Intrusive Distraction” and participants performed relatively low on comprehension. This shows that manipulations of the semantic and affective content of films also have implications for the movie-watching experience. This pattern is consistent with laboratory studies that applied mDES during tasks and found that different tasks evoke different types of experience (for example, patterns of ‘intrusive’ thoughts were common in movie clips that were suspenseful, [18]). At the same time, in the same study, patterns of intrusive thought across the tasks were also associated with trait levels of dysphoria reported by participants. Other studies using mDES in daily life have shown that the data can be described by multiple dimensions and that each of these types of thought is more prevalent in certain activities than others ([19]). For example, in daily life, patterns of ‘intrusive distraction’ thoughts were more prevalent when individuals were engaged in activities that were relatively unengaging (such as resting). Collectively, therefore, studies using mDES suggest that is likely that human thought is multidimensional in nature and that these dimensions vary in a complex way in terms of (a) the contexts that promote them, and (b) how they are impacted by features of the individual (whether they be traits like anxiety or depression or memory for information in a film).

    (2) I'm skeptical about taking human thought ratings at face value. Intrusive distraction might imply disengagement from stimulus materials, but it could also be an intended effect of the movie to trigger higher-level, abstract thinking. Can a label like intrusive distraction be misleading without considering the actual thought and movie content?

    Our method uses a data-driven approach to identify the dimensions that best describe the range of answers that our participants provided to describe their experience. We use these dimensions to understand how these patterns of thought emerge in different contexts and how they vary across individuals (in this case, in different movies, but in other studies, laboratory tasks [3, 8, 9, 12, 20-22] or activities in daily life[6, 7]). These context relationships help constrain interpretations of what the components mean. For example, “Intrusive Distraction” scores were highest in the film with the most real-world significance for the participants (Citizenfour) and were associated with worse comprehension. In daily life, however, patterns of “Intrusive Distraction” thoughts tend to occur when activities engage in non-demanding activities, like resting. Psychological perspectives on thoughts that arise spontaneously occur in this manner since there is evidence that they occur in non-demanding tasks with no semantic content (when there is almost no external stimulus to explain the occurrence of the experience, see [23]), however, other studies have shown that specific cues in the environment can also cue the experience (see [23]). Consistent with this perspective, and our current data, patterns of ‘Intrusive Distraction’ thought are likely to arise for multiple reasons, some of which are more intrinsic in nature (the general association with poor comprehension across all films) and others which are extrinsic in nature (the elevation of intrusive distraction in Citizenfour).

    It is also important to note that our data-driven approach also found patterns of experience that provide more information about the content of their experience, for example, the dimension of “Episodic Knowledge” is characterized by thoughts based on prior knowledge, involving the past, and concerning oneself, and was most prevalent in the romance film (500 Days of Summer). Likewise, “Sensory Engagement” was associated with experiences related to sensory input and positive emotionality and occurred more during the romance movie (500 Days of Summer) than in the documentary (Citizenfour) and was linked to increased brain activity across the sensory systems. This shows that mDES can also provide information about the content of that experience, and discriminate between different sources of experience. In the future, it will be possible to improve the level of detail regarding the content of experiences by changing the questions used to interrogate experience.

    (3) A jittered sampling approach is used to acquire thought ratings every 15 seconds. Are ratings for the same time point averaged across participants? If so, how consistent are ratings among participants? High consistency would suggest thoughts are mainly stimulus-evoked. Low consistency would question the validity of applying ratings from one (group of) participant(s) to brain-related analyses of another participant.

    In this experiment, we sampled experience every 15 seconds in each clip, and in each sampling epoch, we gained mDES responses from eight participants. Furthermore, no participant was sampled at an adjacent time point, as our approach jittered probes approximately 2 minutes apart (See Supplementary Figure 7). To illustrate the consistency of mDES data, we have included an additional figure (Figure 3) highlighting how experience varies over time in each clip. It is evident from these plots that there are distinct moments in which group-averaged reported thoughts across participants are stable and that these can extend across adjacent sampling points (i.e. when the confidence intervals of the score at a timepoint do not overlap with zero). Therefore, in some cases, adjacent sampling points, consisting of different sets of eight participants, describe their experiences as having similar positions on the same mDES dimension. This suggests that there is agreement among individuals regarding how they experienced a specific moment in a film, and in some cases, this agreement was apparent in successive sets of eight participants. Together, our findings indicate a conservation of agreement across participants that spans multiple moments in a film. A clear example of agreement on experience across multiple sets of 10 participants can be seen between 150-400 seconds in the clip from 500 Days of Summer for the dimension of “Sensory Engagement” (time series plot 4 in Figure 3).

    (4) Using three different movies to conclude that different genres evoke different thought patterns (e.g., line 277) seems like an overinterpretation with only one instance per genre.

    We found that mDES was able to distinguish between each film on at least one dimension of experience. In other words, information encoded in the mDES dimensions was sensitive to variation in semantic and affective experiences in the different movie clips. This provides evidence that is necessary but not sufficient to conclude that we can distinguish different genres of films (i.e. if we could not distinguish between films, then we would not be able to distinguish genres). However, it is correct that to begin answering the broader question about experiences in different genres then it would be necessary to map cognition across a larger set of movies, ideally with multiple examples of each genre.

    (5) I see no indication that results were cross-validated, and no effect sizes are reported, leaving the robustness and strength of effects unknown.

    Thank you for drawing this to our attention. We have re-run the LMMs and ANOVA models to include partial eta-squared values to clarify the strength of the effects in each of our reported outcomes.

    Reviewer #3:

    ● What are the considerations for treating high-order thought patterns that occur during film viewing as stable enough to be used across participants? What would be the limitations of this method? (Do all people reading this paper think comparable thoughts reading through the sections?)

    It is likely, based on our study, that films can evoke both stereotyped thought patterns (i.e. thoughts that many people will share) and others that are individualistic. It is clear that, in principle, mDES is capable of capturing empirical information on both stereotypical thoughts and idiosyncratic thoughts. For example, clear differences in experiences across films and, in particular, during specific periods within a film, show that movie-watching can evoke broadly similar thought patterns in different groups of participants (see Figure 3 right-hand panel). On the other hand, the association between comprehension and the different mDES components indicate that certain individuals respond to the same film clip in different ways and that these differences are rooted in objective information (i.e. their memory of an event in a film clip). A clear example of these more idiosyncratic features of movie watching experience can be seen in the association between “Episodic Knowledge” and comprehension. We found that “Episodic Knowledge” was generally high in the romance clip from 500 Days of Summer but was especially high for individuals who performed the best, indicating they remembered the most information. Thus good comprehends responded to the 500 Days of Summer clip with responses that had more evidence of “Episodic Knowledge” In the future, since the mDES approach can account for both stereotyped and idiosyncratic features of experience, it will be an important tool in understanding the common and distinct features that movie watching experiences can have, especially given the cost effective manner with which these studies can be run.

    ● How does this approach differ from collaborative filtering, (for example as presented in Chang et al., 2021)?

    Our study is very similar to the notion of collaborative filtering since we can use an approach that is similar to crowd-sourcing as a tool for understanding brain activity. One of its strengths is its generalizability since it is also a method that can be used to understand cognition because it is not limited to movie-watching. We can use the same mDES method to sample cognition in multiple situations in daily life ([6, 19]), while performing tasks in the behavioural lab [18, 24], and while brain activity is being acquired [8, 25, 26]. In principle, therefore, we can use mDES to understand cognition in different contexts in a common analytic space (see [27] for an example of how this could work)

    Page 5 [106-110]: In our study, we acquired experiential data in one group of participants while watching a movie clip and used these data to understand brain activity recorded in a second set of participants who watched the same clip and for whom no experiential data was recorded. This approach is similar to what is known as “collaborative filtering” [28].

    ● In conclusion, this study tackles a highly interesting subject and does it creatively and expertly. It fails to discuss and establish the utility and appropriateness of its proposed method.

    Thank you very much for your feedback and critique. In our revision and our responses to these questions, we provided more information about the method's robustness utility and application to understanding cognition.

    References

    (1) Gordon, E.M., et al., Precision Functional Mapping of Individual Human Brains. Neuron, 2017. 95(4): p. 791-807.e7.

    (2) Smallwood, J., et al., The neural correlates of ongoing conscious thought. Iscience, 2021. 24(3).

    (3) Konu, D., et al., Exploring patterns of ongoing thought under naturalistic and conventional task-based conditions. Consciousness and Cognition, 2021. 93.

    (4) Smallwood, J., et al., The default mode network in cognition: a topographical perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2021. 22(8): p. 503-513.

    (5) Turnbull, A., et al., Age-related changes in ongoing thought relate to external context and individual cognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 2021. 96: p. 103226.

    (6) McKeown, B., et al., The impact of social isolation and changes in work patterns on ongoing thought during the first COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021. 118(40): p. e2102565118.

    (7) Mulholland, B., et al., Patterns of ongoing thought in the real world. Consciousness and Cognition, 2023. 114: p. 103530.

    (8) Konu, D., et al., A role for the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in self-generated episodic social cognition. NeuroImage, 2020. 218: p. 116977.

    (9) Turnbull, A., et al., Left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex supports context-dependent prioritisation of off-task thought. Nature Communications, 2019. 10.

    (10) Ho, N.S.P., et al., Facing up to the wandering mind: Patterns of off-task laboratory thought are associated with stronger neural recruitment of right fusiform cortex while processing facial stimuli. NeuroImage, 2020. 214: p. 116765.

    (11) Karapanagiotidis, T., et al., Tracking thoughts: Exploring the neural architecture of mental time travel during mind-wandering. NeuroImage, 2017. 147: p. 272-281.

    (12) McKeown, B., et al., Experience sampling reveals the role that covert goal states play in task-relevant behavior. Scientific Reports, 2023. 13(1): p. 21710.

    (13) Vatansever, D., et al., Distinct patterns of thought mediate the link between brain functional connectomes and well-being. Network Neuroscience, 2020. 4(3): p. 637-657.

    (14) Wang, H.-T., et al., Dimensions of Experience: Exploring the Heterogeneity of the Wandering Mind. Psychological Science, 2017. 29(1): p. 56-71.

    (15) Aliko, S., et al., A naturalistic neuroimaging database for understanding the brain using ecological stimuli. Scientific Data, 2020. 7(1).

    (16) Yang, E., et al., The default network dominates neural responses to evolving movie stories. Nature Communications, 2023. 14(1): p. 4197.

    (17) Turnbull, A., et al., Reductions in task positive neural systems occur with the passage of time and are associated with changes in ongoing thought. Scientific Reports, 2020. 10(1): p. 9912.

    (18) Konu, D., et al., Exploring patterns of ongoing thought under naturalistic and conventional task-based conditions. Consciousness and cognition, 2021. 93: p. 103139.

    (19) Mulholland, B., et al., Patterns of ongoing thought in the real world. Consciousness and cognition, 2023. 114: p. 103530.

    (20) Christoff, K., et al., Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009. 106(21): p. 8719-24.

    (21) Zhang, M., et al., Perceptual coupling and decoupling of the default mode network during mind-wandering and reading. eLife, 2022. 11: p. e74011.

    (22) Zhang, M.C., et al., Distinct individual differences in default mode network connectivity relate to off-task thought and text memory during reading. Scientific Reports, 2019. 9.

    (23) Smallwood, J. and J.W. Schooler, The science of mind wandering: Empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual review of psychology, 2015. 66(1): p. 487-518.

    (24) Turnbull, A., et al., The ebb and flow of attention: Between-subject variation in intrinsic connectivity and cognition associated with the dynamics of ongoing experience. Neuroimage, 2019. 185: p. 286-299.

    (25) Turnbull, A., et al., Left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex supports context-dependent prioritisation of off-task thought. Nature communications, 2019. 10(1): p. 3816.

    (26) Mckeown, B., et al., Experience sampling reveals the role that covert goal states play in task-relevant behavior. Scientific reports, 2023. 13(1): p. 21710.

    (27) Chitiz, L., et al., Mapping cognition across lab and daily life using experience-sampling. 2023.

    (28) Chang, L.J., et al., Endogenous variation in ventromedial prefrontal cortex state dynamics during naturalistic viewing reflects affective experience. Science Advances, 2021. 7(17): p. eabf7129.

  8. Version published to 10.1101/2024.01.31.578244v3 on bioRxiv
  9. Version published to 10.7554/elife.97731.1 on eLife
  10. eLife

    eLife assessment

    This study presents a valuable methodological advancement in quantifying thoughts over time. A novel multi-dimensional experience-sampling approach is used to identify data-driven patterns that the authors use to interrogate fMRI data collected during naturalistic movie-watching. The experimentation is inventive and the analyses carried out are convincing, although the conceptualization of thoughts remains too vague to allow for a clear interpretation of results.

  11. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    The authors used a novel multi-dimensional experience sampling (mDES) approach to identify data-driven patterns of experience samples that they use to interrogate fMRI data collected during naturalistic movie-watching data. They identify a set of multi-sensory features of a set of movies that delineate low-dimensional gradients of BOLD fMRI signal patterns that have previously been linked to fundamental axes of cortical organization.

    Strengths:

    The novel solution to challenges associated with experience sampling offers potential access to aspects of experience that have been challenging to assess. While inventive, I worry that the reliability of the mDES approach is currently under-investigated, making it challenging to interpret the import of the later analyses, which are themselves strong and compelling.

    Weaknesses:

    The lack of direct interrogation of individual differences/reliability of the mDES scores warrants some pause.

  12. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    The present study explores how thoughts map onto brain activity, a notoriously challenging question because of the dynamic, subjective, and abstract nature of thoughts. To tackle this question, the authors collected continuous thought ratings from participants watching a movie, and additionally made use of an open-source fMRI dataset recorded during movie watching as well as five established gradients of brain variation as identified in resting state data. Using a voxel-space approach, the results show that episodic knowledge, verbal detail, and sensory engagement of thoughts commonly modulate the activation of the visual and auditory cortex, while intrusive distraction modulates the frontoparietal network. Additionally, sensory engagement is mapped onto a gradient from the primary to the association cortex, while episodic knowledge is mapped onto a gradient from the dorsal attention network to the visual cortex. Building on the association between behavioral performance and neural activation, the authors conclude that sensory coupling to external input and frontoparietal executive control is key to comprehension in naturalistic settings.

    The manuscript stands out for its methodological advancements in quantifying thoughts over time and its aim to study the implementation of thoughts in the brain during naturalistic movie watching. However, the conceptualization of thoughts remains vague, its distinction from other concepts like attention is unclear, and interindividual differences are not sufficiently addressed, limiting the study's insights into brain function.

    Strengths:

    (1) The study raises a question that has been difficult to study in naturalistic settings so far but is key to understanding human cognition, namely how thoughts map onto brain activation.

    (2) The thought ratings introduce a novel method for continuously tracking thoughts, promising utility beyond this study.

    (3) The authors substantiated the effects of thinking from multiple perspectives, using diverse data types, metrics, and analyses.

    (4) The figures are highly informative, accessible, and consistent, aiding comprehension.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) The dimensions of thought seem to distinguish between sensory and executive processing states. However, it is unclear if this effect primarily pertains to thinking. I could imagine highly intrusive distractions in movie segments to correlate with stagnating plot development, little change in scenery, or incomprehensible events. Put differently, it may primarily be the properties of the movies that evoke different processing modes, but these properties are not accounted for. For example, I'm wondering whether a simple measure of engagement with stimulus materials could explain the effects just as much. How can the effects of thinking be distinguished from the perceptual and semantic properties of the movie, as well as attentional effects? Is the measure used here capturing thought processes beyond what other factors could explain?

    (2) I'm skeptical about taking human thought ratings at face value. Intrusive distraction might imply disengagement from stimulus materials, but it could also be an intended effect of the movie to trigger higher-level, abstract thinking. Can a label like intrusive distraction be misleading without considering the actual thought and movie content?

    (3) A jittered sampling approach is used to acquire thought ratings every 15 seconds. Are ratings for the same time point averaged across participants? If so, how consistent are ratings among participants? High consistency would suggest thoughts are mainly stimulus-evoked. Low consistency would question the validity of applying ratings from one (group of) participant(s) to brain-related analyses of another participant.

    (4) Using three different movies to conclude that different genres evoke different thought patterns (e.g., line 277) seems like an overinterpretation with only one instance per genre.

    (5) I see no indication that results were cross-validated, and no effect sizes are reported, leaving the robustness and strength of effects unknown.

  13. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

    This study attempted to investigate the relationship between processing in the human brain during movie watching and corresponding thought processes. This is a highly interesting question, as movie watching presents a semi-constrained task, combining naturally occurring thoughts and common processing of sensory inputs across participants. This task is inherently difficult because in order to know what participants are thinking at any given moment, one has to interrupt the same thought process which is the object of study.

    This study attempts to deal with this issue by aggregating staggered experience sampling data across participants in one behavioral study and using the population-level thought patterns to model brain activity in different participants in an open-access fMRI dataset.

    The behavioral data consist of 120 participants who watched 3 11-minute movie clips. Participants responded to the mDES questionnaire: 16 visual scales characterizing ongoing thought 5 times, two minutes apart, in each clip. The 16 items are first reduced to 4 factors using PCA, and their levels are compared across the different movies. The factors are "episodic knowledge", "intrusive distraction", "verbal detail", and "sensory engagement". The factors differ between the clips, and distraction is negatively correlated with movie comprehension, and sensory engagement is positively correlated with comprehension.

    The components are aggregated across participants (transforming single-subject mDES answers into PCA space and concatenating responses of different participants), and are used as regressors in a GLM analysis. This analysis identifies brain regions corresponding to the components. The resulting brain maps reveal activations that are consistent with the proposed mental processes (e.g. negative loading for intrusion in the frontoparietal network, and positive loadings for visual and auditory cortices for sensory engagement).

    Then, the coordinates for brain regions that were significant for more than one component are entered into a paper search in neurosynth. It is not clear what this analysis demonstrates beyond the fact that sensory engagement contains both visual and auditory components.

    The next analysis projected group-averaged brain activation onto gradients (based on previous work) and used gradient timecourses to predict the behavioral report timecourses. This revealed that high activations in gradient 1 (sensory→association) predicted high sensory engagement, and that "episodic knowledge" thought patterns were predicted by increased visual cortex activations. Then, permutation tests were performed to see whether these thought pattern-related activations corresponded to well-defined regions on a given cluster.

    This paper is framed as presenting a new paradigm but it does little to discuss what this paradigm serves, what its limitations are, and how it should have been tested. I assume that the novelty is in using experience sampling from 1 sample to model the responses of a second sample.

    What are the considerations for treating high-order thought patterns that occur during film viewing as stable enough to be used across participants? What would be the limitations of this method? (Do all people reading this paper think comparable thoughts reading through the sections?)

    How does this approach differ from collaborative filtering, (for example as presented in Chang et al., 2021)?

    In conclusion, this study tackles a highly interesting subject and does it creatively and expertly. It fails to discuss and establish the utility and appropriateness of its proposed method.

    Luke J. Chang et al. ,Endogenous variation in ventromedial prefrontal cortex state dynamics during naturalistic viewing reflects affective experience.Sci. Adv.7,eabf7129(2021).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.abf7129

  14. Version published to 10.1101/2024.01.31.578244v2 on bioRxiv
  15. Version published to 10.1101/2024.01.31.578244v1 on bioRxiv