Implicit neural representations for larval zebrafish brain microscopy: a reproducible benchmark on the MapZebrain atlas
Organizations: Institute of Fundamental Technological Research Polish Academy of Sciences, Pawinskiego 5B, Warsaw, 02-106, Poland
Abstract
Implicit neural representations (INRs) offer continuous coordinate-based encodings for atlas registration, cross-modality resampling, sparse-view completion, and compact sharing of neuroanatomical data. Yet reproducible evaluation is lacking for high-resolution larval zebrafish microscopy, where preserving neuropil boundaries and fine neuronal processes is critical. We present a reproducible INR benchmark for the MapZebrain larval zebrafish brain atlas. Using a unified, seed-controlled protocol, we compare SIREN, Fourier features, Haar positional encoding, and a multi-resolution grid on 950 grayscale microscopy images, including atlas slices and single-neuron projections. Images are normalized with per-image (1,99) percentiles estimated from 10% of pixels in non-held-out columns, and spatial generalization is tested with a deterministic 40% column-wise hold-out along the X-axis. Haar and Fourier achieve the strongest macro-averaged reconstruction fidelity on held-out columns (about 26 dB), while the grid is moderately behind. SIREN performs worse in macro averages but remains competitive on area-weighted micro averages in the all-in-one regime. SSIM and edge-focused error further show that Haar and Fourier preserve boundaries more accurately. These results indicate that explicit spectral and multiscale encodings better capture high-frequency neuroanatomical detail than smoother-bias alternatives. For MapZebrain workflows, Haar and Fourier are best suited to boundary-sensitive tasks such as atlas registration, label transfer, and morphology-preserving sharing, while SIREN remains a lightweight baseline for background modelling or denoising.
Figures & tables
| Model | Macro-Mean | Macro-Std | Micro-Mean | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haar | 26.09 | 27.70 | 12.83 | 354 |
| Fourier | 25.95 | 26.59 | 13.75 | 288 |
| SIREN | 13.90 | 2.28 | 13.41 | 233 |
| Grid | 24.12 | 28.31 | 10.98 | 75 |
| Regime | Haar | Fourier | SIREN | Grid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| all-in-one | 11.23 | 12.47 | 12.71 | 9.80 |
| regions | 26.47 | 26.57 | 17.68 | 26.45 |
| Regime | Model | Macro-Mean | Macro-Std | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| all-in-one | Haar | 12.41 | 2.53 | 291 |
| all-in-one | Fourier | 12.93 | 1.79 | 198 |
| all-in-one | SIREN | 12.70 | 0.82 | 228 |
| all-in-one | Grid | 10.25 | 2.15 | 6 |
| regions | Haar | 69.68 | 26.36 | 63 |
| regions | Fourier | 67.43 | 26.22 | 90 |
| Model | SSIM (↑) | Edge MAE (↓) | PSNR [dB] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourier | 0.689 | 0.183 | 13.80 |
| Grid | 0.687 | 0.246 | 10.93 |
| Haar | 0.634 | 0.213 | 12.83 |
| SIREN | 0.443 | 0.208 | 13.43 |
| Setting | Value |
|---|---|
| Intensity normalization | per-image percentiles |
| Hold-out split | blocked_cols_X , |
| Train subsampling | pixels from training columns |
| Epochs / Optimizer | / AdamW ( , ) |
| Loss | Smooth- ( ) |
| Batch size |
| Model | Mean SD | Median | IQR | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fourier | 25.95 ± 26.59 | 13.16 | [11.87, 18.05] | 950 |
| Grid | 24.12 ± 28.31 | 9.99 | [9.36, 16.43] | 950 |
| Haar | 26.09 ± 27.70 | 14.10 | [10.31, 16.92] | 950 |
| SIREN | 13.90 ± 2.28 | 13.00 | [12.21, 15.18] | 950 |
| Regime | Model | Mean SD | Median | IQR | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| all-in-one | Fourier | 12.93 ± 1.79 | 12.47 | [11.73, 13.69] | 723 |
| all-in-one | Grid | 10.25 ± 2.15 | 9.80 | [9.06, 10.32] | 723 |
| all-in-one | Haar | 12.41 ± 2.53 | 12.96 | [10.18, 14.52] | 723 |
| all-in-one | SIREN | 12.70 ± 0.82 | 12.54 | [12.08, 13.23] | 723 |
| regions | Fourier | 67.43 ± 26.22 | 55.81 | [45.77, 100.00] | 227 |
| regions | Grid | 68.29 ± 27.84 | 54.89 | [44.36, 100.00] | 227 |
| Comparison | -value (Wilcoxon) | Cliff’s | 95% CI | Paired N |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haar vs. SIREN | 2.617e-14 | 0.051 | [-0.008, 0.103] | 950 |
| Fourier vs. SIREN | 2.940e-34 | 0.029 | [-0.020, 0.079] | 950 |
| Haar vs. Grid | 1.692e-49 | 0.308 | [0.254, 0.359] | 950 |
| Fourier vs. Grid | 5.293e-67 | 0.435 | [0.387, 0.487] | 950 |
| Haar vs. Fourier | 1.432e-08 | -0.053 | [-0.107, 0.001] | 950 |
| Model | Outliers | Total (regions) | Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourier | 73 | 227 | 32.2 |
| Haar | 67 | 227 | 29.5 |
| Grid | 94 | 227 | 41.4 |
| SIREN | 0 | 227 | 0.0 |
| Regime | Best method | Wins | N | Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| all-in-one | Fourier | 198 | 723 | 27.4 |
| all-in-one | Grid | 6 | 723 | 0.8 |
| all-in-one | Haar | 291 | 723 | 40.2 |
| all-in-one | SIREN | 228 | 723 | 31.5 |
| regions | Fourier | 90 | 227 | 39.6 |
| regions | Grid | 69 | 227 | 22.5 |
| Model | Median | IQR | Trimmed Mean (10%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haar | 14.10 | [10.31, 16.92] | 16.84 |
| Fourier | 13.16 | [11.87, 18.05] | 16.27 |
| Grid | 9.99 | [ 9.36, 16.43] | 14.22 |
| SIREN | 13.00 | [12.21, 15.18] | 13.62 |