Neuroinformatics

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 57–66

The Cognitive Paradigm Ontology: Design and Application

Original Article

Abstract

We present the basic structure of the Cognitive Paradigm Ontology (CogPO) for human behavioral experiments. While the experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience literature may refer to certain behavioral tasks by name (e.g., the Stroop paradigm or the Sternberg paradigm) or by function (a working memory task, a visual attention task), these paradigms can vary tremendously in the stimuli that are presented to the subject, the response expected from the subject, and the instructions given to the subject. Drawing from the taxonomy developed and used by the BrainMap project (www.brainmap.org) for almost two decades to describe key components of published functional imaging results, we have developed an ontology capable of representing certain characteristics of the cognitive paradigms used in the fMRI and PET literature. The Cognitive Paradigm Ontology is being developed to be compliant with the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO), and to harmonize where possible with larger ontologies such as RadLex, NeuroLex, or the Ontology of Biomedical Investigations (OBI). The key components of CogPO include the representation of experimental conditions focused on the stimuli presented, the instructions given, and the responses requested. The use of alternate and even competitive terminologies can often impede scientific discoveries. Categorization of paradigms according to stimulus, response, and instruction has been shown to allow advanced data retrieval techniques by searching for similarities and contrasts across multiple paradigm levels. The goal of CogPO is to develop, evaluate, and distribute a domain ontology of cognitive paradigms for application and use in the functional neuroimaging community.

Keywords

Ontologies Neuroimaging Cognitive experiments Brain mapping 

References

  1. Altmann, C. F., et al. (2007). Processing of location and pattern changes of natural sounds in the human auditory cortex. NeuroImage, 35(3), 1192–1200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amari, S., et al. (2002). Neuroinformatics: the integration of shared databases and tools towards integrative neuroscience. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 1(2), 117–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arp, R., et al. (2008). Function, role, and disposition in basic formal ontology. Nature Precedings.Google Scholar
  4. Bilder, R. M., et al. (2009). Cognitive ontologies for neuropsychiatric phenomics research. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 14(4–5), 419–450.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinkman, R. R., et al. (2010). Modeling biomedical experimental processes with OBI. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 1(Suppl 1), S7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, G. G., et al. (2009). Brain-performance correlates of working memory retrieval in schizophrenia: a cognitive modeling approach. Schizophenia Bulletin, 35(1), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bug, W. J., et al. (2008). The Nifstd and Birnlex vocabularies: building comprehensive ontologies for neuroscience. Neuroinformatics, 6(3), 175–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns, G., et al. (2009). Biomedical knowledge engineering tools based on experimental design: A case study based on neuroanatomical tract-tracing experiments. KCAP 2009. Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, D. L., et al. (2004). The foundational model of anatomy: a template for the symbolic representation of multi-scale physiological functions. Conference Proceedings - IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 7, 5415–5418.Google Scholar
  10. Derrfuss, J., et al. (2009). Lost in localization: the need for a universal coordinate database. NeuroImage, 48(1), 1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeYoe, E. A., et al. (1996). Mapping striate and extrastriate visual areas in human cerebral cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93(6), 2382–2386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fennema-Notestine, C. (2009). Enabling public data sharing: encouraging scientific discovery and education. Methods in Molecular Biology, 569, 25–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford, J. M., et al. (2009). Tuning in to the voices: a multi-site Fmri study of auditory hallucinations. Schizophenia Bulletin, 35(1), 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frishkoff, G. A., et al. (2007). A framework to support automated Erp pattern classification and labeling. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2007, Article ID 14567, p 13.Google Scholar
  15. Frishkoff, G. A., et al. (2009). Development of neural electromagnetic ontologies (Nemo): Representation and integration of event-related brain potentials. Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Ontologies (ICBO09). Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, P. T., et al. (2002). Opinion: mapping context and content: the BrainMap model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3(4), 319–21.Google Scholar
  17. Gadde, S., et al. (2011). Xcede: an extensible schema for biomedical data. Neuroinformatics.Google Scholar
  18. Gardner, D., et al. (2008). The neuroscience information framework: a data and knowledge environment for neuroscience. Neuroinformatics, 6(3), 149–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golbreich, C., et al. (2006). The foundational model of anatomy in owl: experience and perspectives. Web Semantic, 4(3), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton, A. F. (2009). Lost in localization: a minimal middle way. NeuroImage, 48(1), 8–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. INCF (2010). Report of Oversight Committee on Metadata Standards, 12–13 January.Google Scholar
  22. Keator, D. B., et al. (2006). A general Xml schema and Spm toolbox for storage of neuro-imaging results and anatomical labels. Neuroinformatics, 4(2), 199–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keator, D. B., et al. (2008). A national human neuroimaging collaboratory enabled by the biomedical informatics research network (Birn). IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 12(2), 162–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiehl, K. A., et al. (2005). Abnormal hemodynamics in schizophrenia during an auditory oddball task. Biological Psychiatry, 57(9), 1029–1040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, D., et al. (2009a). Auditory oddball deficits in schizophrenia: an independent component analysis of the Fmri multisite function Birn study. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 35(1), 67–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, D. I., et al. (2009b). Dysregulation of working memory and default-mode networks in schizophrenia using independent component analysis, an Fbirn and Mcic study. Human Brain Mapping, 30(11), 3795–3811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laird, A. R., et al. (2005). BrainMap: the social evolution of a human brain mapping database. Neuroinformatics, 3(1), 65–78. Google Scholar
  28. Laird, A. R., et al. (2009). Lost in localization? The focus is meta-analysis. NeuroImage, 48(1), 18–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langlotz, C. P. (2006). Radlex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics, 26(6), 1595–1597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larson, S. D., et al. (2009). Ontologies for neuroscience: what are they and what are they good for? Frontiers in Neuroscience, 3(1), 60–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mabee, P. M., et al. (2007). Phenotype ontologies: the bridge between genomics and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(7), 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marcus, D. S., et al. (2007). The extensible neuroimaging archive toolkit: an informatics platform for managing, exploring, and sharing neuroimaging data. Neuroinformatics, 5(1), 11–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McKenna, F. P., et al. (2004). Reversing the emotional stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: the role of fast and slow components. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 382–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mungall, C. J., et al. (2010). Integrating phenotype ontologies across multiple species. Genome Biology, 11(1), R2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nielsen, F. A. (2009). Lost in localization: a solution with neuroinformatics 2.0? NeuroImage, 48(1), 11–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poldrack, R. A., et al. (Manuscript under review). The cognitive atlas: towards a knowledge foundation for cognitive neuroscience.Google Scholar
  38. Potkin, S. G., et al. (2009). Working memory and Dlpfc inefficiency in schizophrenia: The Fbirn study. Schizophenia Bulletin, 35(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosse, C., et al. (2003). A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the foundational model of anatomy. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36(6), 478–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, B., et al. (2005). Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology, 6(5), R46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, B., et al. (2007). The Obo foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature Biotechnology, 25(11), 1251–1255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spiers, H. J., et al. (2007). Decoding human brain activity during real-world experiences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 356–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sternberg, S. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652–654.Google Scholar
  44. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Toga, A. W. (2002). Neuroimage databases: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(4), 302–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Essen, D. C. (2005). A population-average, landmark- and surface-based (Pals) atlas of human cerebral cortex. NeuroImage, 28(3), 635–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Essen, D. C. (2009). Lost in localization–but found with Foci?! NeuroImage, 48(1), 14–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Horn, J., et al. (2001). The functional magnetic resonance imaging data center (Fmridc): the challenges and rewards of large-scale databasing of neuroimaging studies. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B Biological Sciences, 356, 1323–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. W3C-OWL-Working-Group. (2009). “Owl 2 Web Ontology Language: W3c Recommendation 27 October 2009.” Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/.
  50. Washington, N. L., et al. (2009). Linking human diseases to animal models using ontology-based phenotype annotation. PLoS Biology, 7(11), e1000247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xiang, Z., et al. Ontofox: web-based support for ontology reuse. BMC Res Notes 3, 175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mind Research NetworkAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Research Imaging InstituteUniversity of Texas Health Science CenterSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations