<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: more on fMRI</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/09/more-on-fmri/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/09/more-on-fmri/</link>
	<description>of brains and their minds</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Chatham</title>
		<link>http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/09/more-on-fmri/#comment-34</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Chatham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/09/more-on-fmri/#comment-34</guid>
		<description>Excellent post - I think you've hit the nail on the head with "the methods haven’t caught up to the ideas yet."  Although the geniuses at UCL may have methods of analysis that *have* caught up with everything we'd like to do with fMRI, even some of the most famous journals are publishing imaging studies with embarassing analysis probelms (problems with baseline control tasks, or unjustified conclusions about hemispheric assymetries based on inappropriate comparisons).

It might be interesting to "walk the walk" that we're talking here by analyzing - as a group - a specific fMRI study that appears to be well done.  My guess is that we will be able to uncover methodological problems in just about any fMRI study that might be volunteered for this exercise ...  Of course, it's not hard to find methodological issues in any paper, if you're looking hard enough.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post - I think you&#8217;ve hit the nail on the head with &#8220;the methods haven’t caught up to the ideas yet.&#8221;  Although the geniuses at UCL may have methods of analysis that *have* caught up with everything we&#8217;d like to do with fMRI, even some of the most famous journals are publishing imaging studies with embarassing analysis probelms (problems with baseline control tasks, or unjustified conclusions about hemispheric assymetries based on inappropriate comparisons).</p>
<p>It might be interesting to &#8220;walk the walk&#8221; that we&#8217;re talking here by analyzing - as a group - a specific fMRI study that appears to be well done.  My guess is that we will be able to uncover methodological problems in just about any fMRI study that might be volunteered for this exercise &#8230;  Of course, it&#8217;s not hard to find methodological issues in any paper, if you&#8217;re looking hard enough.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NeuroGuy</title>
		<link>http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/09/more-on-fmri/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>NeuroGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:34:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/09/more-on-fmri/#comment-30</guid>
		<description>"Speculative conclusions from thin results" describes much of the fMRI work related to marketing and advertising in the last year or two, although time will solve much of this problem.  As we get more experience in relating observed brain activity to future behavior probabilities, and as the spatial and temporal resolution of scanning systems improves, the techniques will become a lot more useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Speculative conclusions from thin results&#8221; describes much of the fMRI work related to marketing and advertising in the last year or two, although time will solve much of this problem.  As we get more experience in relating observed brain activity to future behavior probabilities, and as the spatial and temporal resolution of scanning systems improves, the techniques will become a lot more useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
