Writing study: CineBrain: A Large-Scale Multi-Modal Audiovisual Brain Dataset for Brain-Conditioned Video Generation

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Jianxiong Gao, Yichang Liu, baofeng yang, Jianfeng Feng, Yanwei Fu · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Datasets, benchmarks & measurement (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

11 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.12 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

6 / 3

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 73.82%References / intervening material: ≈ 26.18%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 0.94 pp.	8.55%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.95 pp.	8.64%
3. Experimental Designs and Curated Dataset	3	≈ 1.47 pp.	13.36%
4. Methods	5	≈ 2.12 pp.	19.27%
5. Experiments	7	≈ 1.4 pp.	12.73%
6. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.24 pp.	2.18%
Acknowledgements	9	≈ 0.07 pp.	0.64%
References	9	≈ 2.88 pp.	26.18%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Table 1 · p. 3
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 5
• Table 2 · p. 5
• Figure 5 · p. 6
• Figure 6 · p. 7
• Table 3 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

Additional source 1

Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 6 physical pages; 7 detected figures and 2 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
1. Detailed Information on CineBrain	1	≈ 0.19 pp.
2. Additional Experimental Results	1	≈ 2.29 pp.
3. Limitations and Future Work	3	≈ 2.41 pp.
References	6	≈ 0.95 pp.

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 1
• Table 1 · p. 2
• Figure 3 · p. 2
• Figure 4 · p. 3
• Table 2 · p. 3
• Figure 5 · p. 4
• Figure 6 · p. 4
• Figure 7 · p. 5

Argument and organization

1. 3. Experimental Designs and Curated Dataset

   Documents subjects, acquisition, synchronization, preprocessing, and possible tasks.

2. 4. Methods and 5. Experiments

   Introduces fusion and decoding, then separates semantic from perceptual metrics.

Problem, claim and contribution

The dataset gap is multimodal stimulation plus complementary brain measurements, not simply another image decoder.

§1; Figure 1 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Acquisition receives a full section before modeling; the main text specifies stimulus duration, synchronized recording, preprocessing, and temporal train/test split.

§§3.1–3.2 pp. 3–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Brain-region maps tie selected signals to anatomy; the reconstruction grid uses matched temporal frames and unimodal variants as direct comparators.

Figure 3 p. 4; Figure 6 p. 7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Fusion structures, unimodal baselines, and auditory-ROI inclusion are evaluated separately, with semantic and perceptual metric families distinguished.

Table 2 p. 5; Table 3 p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement supplies prompts, electrode layout, per-subject tables, and longer sequences rather than relying only on the most attractive main-page examples.

Supplement pp. 1–5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The methods caption labels a training-only component, preventing inference readers from mistaking aligned targets for available test inputs.

Figure 5 caption p. 6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For a dataset-plus-baseline paper, give acquisition and split design equal explanatory priority to architecture and generated examples.

Boundary: Per-subject examples do not alone establish unseen-subject transfer; inspect the actual training protocol. Do not repeat the supplement's apparent EEG/fMRI resolution wording reversal.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Manuscript-wide writing scan of main PDF pp. 1–8: framing, section structure, method exposition, figure/table captions, evaluation organization and conclusions; not an exhaustive technical proof audit or reproduction.

Appendix / supplement

Scanned six supplementary pages on ROIs, description prompts, EEG layout, alignment ablations, per-subject results, reconstruction sequences, and stated limitations.

Visually inspected PDF pages

4, 7

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVPR 2026 CVF proceedings PDF; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 11 pages
• Official CVPR 2026 separate supplementary PDF; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 6 pages