Re:Researcher questions years of his own work with a reexami...
by SubiculumCode on Thursday June 04, 2020 @01:03PM
(#23419069)
There is almost irrational glee expressed whenever an article like this comes out, not just by the press, but also by HN commenters, who seem primed to pounce on any evidence that supports their preconceived negative views on neuroscience. I often wonder why this is the case.
I should add that every full moon a study comes out criticizing fMRI or drawing attention to its limitations, but researchers are very well aware of that. The fMRI response* to a task is neither temporally nor spatially specific, and it is confounded by anything that could remotely influence blood flow and blood volume. Figuring out how to deal with these issues is an active area of research - see an informal discussion here [3].
It's really a shame that the field is purported so negatively by the press, given it's the only thing we have to study brain function in humans with sub-millimeter spatial resolution non-invasively in-vivo.
[1] http://scholarpedia.org/article/Neurovascular_coupling [2] https://www.cell.com/neuron/pdf/S0896-6273(17)30652-9.pdf [3] https://practicalfmri.blogspot.com/2017/08/fluctuations-and-...
* Assuming the conventional Blood Oxygenated Level Dependent contrast used for functional imaging.