You are currently browsing the thoughts on thoughts weblog archives for the day 29/12/2010.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
« Nov | Jan » | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
- 06/03/2012: Folk neuropsychology
- 03/03/2012: Change Deafness
- 29/02/2012: Free-will again
- 26/02/2012: Interpreting spatial language
- 23/02/2012: BOLD confounds
- 20/02/2012: Creative running
- 17/02/2012: Control of attention
- 14/02/2012: Introspection is not as it appears
- 11/02/2012: Decision theory
- 08/02/2012: Deaf hearing
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
Archive for 29/12/2010
Improving scan results
29/12/2010 by admin.
Yarkoni and others make a plea for collaboration and cumulative science in the mapping of brain functions, and in doing this they give much needed cautions to those of us that follow the images without any first-hand experience of a fMRI technology. I list here what they say are the short comings of individual studies.
-
The studies are usually small, about 50-20 subjects, and the confidence thresholds are high, 0.001 or less. This limits the detection of activity to only very large effects and gives a misleadingly simple picture. Many effect are not seen in the small sample size or go unreported because they do not reach significance levels. Effects are likely to be far more widespread across the cortex rather than the highly localized picture we see.
-
Even with very high confidence thresholds, there are many falsely positive results because of the extreme volume of results (the brain is big). Published false positive ‘lit spots’ in images are estimated at around 15%.
-
Because of the expense on imaging studies, they are rarely actually duplicated by others. Instead near replications are done that give slightly different information. What is more it is difficult to replicate the exact location matches between studies even when the protocol is identical.
-
One individual area of the brain can be activated by many tasks and so it is difficult to selectively pair an area to a function. The ‘area for X’ idea does not mean that if the area is active that therefore X is the current task. There is also the confusion of close and overlapping areas.
-
The identification of networks, such as the ‘default’ and the ‘tasking’ ones, is hampered by the lack of agreement on how to describe both the brain areas and the cognitive tasks.
All these problems the authors feel could be reduced by sharing and integrating data. This requires common frameworks and formats, common databases and, of course, openness and cooperation. They detail these requirements.
Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R., Van Essen, D., & Wager, T. (2010). Cognitive neuroscience 2.0: building a cumulative science of human brain function Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (11), 489-496 DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.004
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »