Deficient approaches to human neuroimaging

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is the workhorse of imaging-based human cognitive neuroscience. The use of fMRI is ever-increasing; within the last 4 years more fMRI studies have been published than in the previous 17 years. This large body of research has mainly focused on the functional localization of condition- or stimulus-dependent changes in the blood-oxygenation-level dependent signal. In recent years, however, many aspects of the commonly practiced analysis frameworks and methodologies have been critically reassessed. Here we summarize these critiques, providing an overview of the major conceptual and practical deficiencies in widely used brain-mapping approaches, and exemplify some of these issues by the use of imaging data and simulations. In particular, we discuss the inherent pitfalls and shortcomings of methodologies for statistical parametric mapping. Our critique emphasizes recent reports of excessively high numbers of both false positive and false negative findings in fMRI brain mapping. We outline our view regarding the broader scientific implications of these methodological considerations and briefly discuss possible solutions.

Probing the reaching–grasping network in humans through multivoxel pattern decoding

“…As recently shown in a study based on simulated data (Stelzer et al. 2014), the combined use of spatial smoothing and cluster based correction could increase the number of false positives and false negatives, respectively. Thus, both univariate and multivariate approaches could introduce possible limitations, and their combination should be more informative than the use of a single approach (see also Gallivan et al.…”

EEG Source Reconstruction in Male Nonsmokers after Nicotine Administration during the Resting State

“…A recent departure from the repeated-measure design is the mixed-effect design, which seems to outperform the more traditional repeated-measure analysis [12]. Further, a hierarchical mixed-effect design can effectively estimate intrasubject variability at first [13,14] and then intersubject variability [15]. In conclusion, a hierarchical mixed-effect design seems particularly useful in increasing reliability in a pharmacological study, since the appropriate estimation of individual reactions with respect to the administration of a drug is of fundamental importance [16].…”

Critical neuroscience meets medical humanities

“…For the past two decades, neuroscience has dwelled in the popular spotlight by selling itself as the hottest ticket aspiring to unveil the fundamental functioning principles of the central nervous system, thanks to its ever-more sophisticated measurement and intervention techniques 10. While the bonanza seems by and large over today (in 2015)—as technical limitations and methodological shortcomings are discussed on ever broader scales11 12—the brain's iconic status as the locus of personhood and subjectivity,13 and as a prime site of biomedical intervention therein, remains largely unscathed.…”