Comments on: How much should scientists worry? http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/ of brains and their minds Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:19:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Small Gray Matters » Blog Archive » Two cautionary notes on the use of fMRI http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-12387 Small Gray Matters » Blog Archive » Two cautionary notes on the use of fMRI Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:05:40 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-12387 [...] Nature each have very nice commentaries on the limitations of fMRI, a topic I’ve written about a few times before. The Nature piece is a review by Nikos Logothetis entitled “What we can [...] [...] Nature each have very nice commentaries on the limitations of fMRI, a topic I’ve written about a few times before. The Nature piece is a review by Nikos Logothetis entitled “What we can [...]

]]> By: Andrew http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-14 Andrew Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:36:35 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-14 I'm really impressed with this blog. I'm a recent college grad who is just getting into neuroimaging, and I appreciate your defense of fMRI as a unique tool. Also, I don't think that fMRI's role in understanding psychopathology, which (arguably) has more "real world" importance than some cognitive neuroscientific pursuits, should be overlooked. Keep up the good work!! :) I’m really impressed with this blog. I’m a recent college grad who is just getting into neuroimaging, and I appreciate your defense of fMRI as a unique tool. Also, I don’t think that fMRI’s role in understanding psychopathology, which (arguably) has more “real world” importance than some cognitive neuroscientific pursuits, should be overlooked. Keep up the good work!! :)

]]> By: small and gray http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-13 small and gray Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:31:05 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-13 Chris, thanks! Glad you like it, I'm a big fan of your writing. As far as what imaging can and can't do--I think it really depends on the quality of the study, much like in any other discipline. I think it's probably easier to look impressive without saying anything substantive in an imaging paper than a behavioral study. But at its best, I think imaging offers a really powerful window into cognition that's difficult to get any other way. The logic of dissociation and association that's been adapted from neuropsychology is a very useful one when used appropriately. But hopefully I'll write more on that in detail as this blog comes along... Chris, thanks! Glad you like it, I’m a big fan of your writing.

As far as what imaging can and can’t do–I think it really depends on the quality of the study, much like in any other discipline. I think it’s probably easier to look impressive without saying anything substantive in an imaging paper than a behavioral study. But at its best, I think imaging offers a really powerful window into cognition that’s difficult to get any other way. The logic of dissociation and association that’s been adapted from neuropsychology is a very useful one when used appropriately. But hopefully I’ll write more on that in detail as this blog comes along…

]]> By: Chris http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-12 Chris Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:10:16 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-12 By the way, I meant include in that comment the fact that I'm loving this new blog. By the way, I meant include in that comment the fact that I’m loving this new blog.

]]> By: Chris http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-11 Chris Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:09:42 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/06/30/how-much-should-scientists-worry/#comment-11 As a cognitive psychologist, my attitude toward imaging is that it occasionally ofters a good tool for hypothesis testing, when two competing models would make different predictions about brain activity. The best example of this I know is the work of Todd Maddox and his colleagues on different types of categorization. They used imaging studies to show that rule-based categorization largely resulted in activation in the frontal cortex and the thalamocortical loop, while categorization that didn't (and couldn't) involve explicit rules utilized parts of the brain's reward system. I know this is an oversimplified description of their data, but the point I'm trying to make is that different activation helped them argue for the existence of different categorization processes. However, they'd hypothesized the different processes based on behavioral data, and without that data, they would never have been able to know what to look at in the imaging data. Furthermre, the impetus for the imaging studies wasn't to make sure their model was plausible, neuroscientifically. It rarely is, and I don't think it should be, because imaging studies generally can't present a picture detailed enough to determine the plausibility of theories. As a cognitive psychologist, my attitude toward imaging is that it occasionally ofters a good tool for hypothesis testing, when two competing models would make different predictions about brain activity. The best example of this I know is the work of Todd Maddox and his colleagues on different types of categorization. They used imaging studies to show that rule-based categorization largely resulted in activation in the frontal cortex and the thalamocortical loop, while categorization that didn’t (and couldn’t) involve explicit rules utilized parts of the brain’s reward system. I know this is an oversimplified description of their data, but the point I’m trying to make is that different activation helped them argue for the existence of different categorization processes. However, they’d hypothesized the different processes based on behavioral data, and without that data, they would never have been able to know what to look at in the imaging data. Furthermre, the impetus for the imaging studies wasn’t to make sure their model was plausible, neuroscientifically. It rarely is, and I don’t think it should be, because imaging studies generally can’t present a picture detailed enough to determine the plausibility of theories.

]]>