Benchmarking spatial interpolation methods for brain maps

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

The human brain is a unique biological space that hosts complex processes unfolding at multiple scales. To study these processes, an abundance of imaging technologies evolved over many decades to produce large-scale, dense mappings of structural and functional features. In parallel, a rich universe of techniques for cellular and molecular biology supplies us with fine-scale, highly specific and reliable measurements in sparse tissue samples. To represent cortical processes integratively across scales, spatial interpolation is necessary for bridging dense and sparse data. The absence of a field consensus for realistic interpolation of features over the whole brain prompts a comprehensive comparison of existing frameworks from the broader scientific literature. Here, we benchmark the performance of multiple deterministic (Inverse Distance Weighting, K-Nearest Neighbours, and Radial Basis Function) and stochastic (Spatially-Weighted Regression, Ordinary Kriging, and Regression Kriging) strategies first with simulated or empirical ground truths. We then demonstrate two use cases with de novo sparse brain data (intracranial EEG and microarray gene expression). In these experiments, we investigate how differences in data characteristics, such as spatial dependency structure and sampling distribution, impact the performance of different interpolation methods. Throughout the results, we consistently find that maps interpolated through spatially-informed stochastic frameworks such as Ordinary Kriging and Regression Kriging are more accurate and biologically realistic across geometric constraints, data modalities, and sampling conditions. This invites continued development of spatially-informed statistical frameworks for analyzing brain data and, more fundamentally, the biological processes that produce them.
Full text 1,917 characters · extracted from oa-html · click to expand
Abstract The human brain is a unique biological space that hosts complex processes unfolding at multiple scales. To study these processes, an abundance of imaging technologies evolved over many decades to produce large-scale, dense mappings of structural and functional features. In parallel, a rich universe of techniques for cellular and molecular biology supplies us with fine-scale, highly specific and reliable measurements in sparse tissue samples. To represent cortical processes integratively across scales, spatial interpolation is necessary for bridging dense and sparse data. The absence of a field consensus for realistic interpolation of features over the whole brain prompts a comprehensive comparison of existing frameworks from the broader scientific literature. Here, we benchmark the performance of multiple deterministic (Inverse Distance Weighting, K-Nearest Neighbours, and Radial Basis Function) and stochastic (Spatially-Weighted Regression, Ordinary Kriging, and Regression Kriging) strategies first with simulated or empirical ground truths. We then demonstrate two use cases with de novo sparse brain data (intracranial EEG and microarray gene expression). In these experiments, we investigate how differences in data characteristics, such as spatial dependency structure and sampling distribution, impact the performance of different interpolation methods. Throughout the results, we consistently find that maps interpolated through spatially-informed stochastic frameworks such as Ordinary Kriging and Regression Kriging are more accurate and biologically realistic across geometric constraints, data modalities, and sampling conditions. This invites continued development of spatially-informed statistical frameworks for analyzing brain data and, more fundamentally, the biological processes that produce them. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0