Comments on: Brain Imaging Techniques or Technocolor Phrenology http://brainblogger.com/2006/04/01/studies-brain-imaging-techniques-or-technocolor-phrenology/ Topics from multidimensional biopsychosocial perspectives. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:19:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: J. Stephen Higgins http://brainblogger.com/2006/04/01/studies-brain-imaging-techniques-or-technocolor-phrenology/#comment-96 J. Stephen Higgins Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:26:00 +0000 http://blog.gnif.org/?p=488#comment-96 you know there are a number of problems with neuroimaging - and cognitive neuroscientists are the first to admit those flaws. There is problem with articles and comments that marginalize neuroimaging because of the subtraction method or variabilty. The do not give credit to the good that can come out of neuroimaging. As a matter of fact there are a number of things that neuroimaging can do that no other method can! I think I've bitched enough..hah.. you know there are a number of problems with neuroimaging - and cognitive neuroscientists are the first to admit those flaws. There is problem with articles and comments that marginalize neuroimaging because of the subtraction method or variabilty. The do not give credit to the good that can come out of neuroimaging. As a matter of fact there are a number of things that neuroimaging can do that no other method can! I think I’ve bitched enough..hah..

]]> By: Chris http://brainblogger.com/2006/04/01/studies-brain-imaging-techniques-or-technocolor-phrenology/#comment-95 Chris Sun, 02 Apr 2006 04:14:00 +0000 http://blog.gnif.org/?p=488#comment-95 Enjoyed the post. I just wanted to note (as a cognitive psychologists) that there is, and has been as long as I have been in the field (since 1999), a significant number of cognitive psychologists who, like William Uttal, are very skeptical of cognitive neuroscience. Many of us even see it as a "fad," based on several false premises. In fact, one of the talks I saw while at a "prospective student weekend" at one of the top 3 Cog Psych programs in the country, back in '99, presented an argument that the subtraction method, the most popular method in cognitive neuroscience, was utterly worthless. Then, the first talk I saw as a grad student argued that the extreme variability across cog. neuro. studies made them worthless theoretically. And in both of these talks, attended almost exclusively by cognitive psychologists (there were a few neuroscientists in there, as well, though I don't think any cog. neuros. were there), the speakeres were preaching to the choir. Of course, some of the animosity from cognitive psychologists has to do with job security. If cognitive neuroscience is, as many cognitive neuroscientists believe (and I've heard many of them say this), the best, if not the only way to study cognition, then many of us will be out of a job someday soon. And cognitive neuroscientists have gotten a lot of jobs and grant money over the last decade or so, which also creates animosity between areas, even those as closely related as cog psych and cog neuro. My own position, after 7 years in the field, is that cognitive neuroscience provides a great starting point, but is nowhere near providing a suitable ending point. It can guide theory and research. For example, if imaging studies indicate that two tasks that ostensibly require different mechanisms lead to a lot of overlapping activation, we can develop the hypothesis that the mechanisms involved in those tasks might be related, and then go out and test that hypothesis experimentally (without imaging). That's an oversimplified example, I know, but you get the point. However, I think you have to take any imaging study with a big grain of salt. All imaging methods have serious flaws, and the only way to overcome them is to use a variety of imaging, neurospcyhological, and ordinary cognitive psychological paradigms. Enjoyed the post. I just wanted to note (as a cognitive psychologists) that there is, and has been as long as I have been in the field (since 1999), a significant number of cognitive psychologists who, like William Uttal, are very skeptical of cognitive neuroscience. Many of us even see it as a “fad,” based on several false premises. In fact, one of the talks I saw while at a “prospective student weekend” at one of the top 3 Cog Psych programs in the country, back in ‘99, presented an argument that the subtraction method, the most popular method in cognitive neuroscience, was utterly worthless. Then, the first talk I saw as a grad student argued that the extreme variability across cog. neuro. studies made them worthless theoretically. And in both of these talks, attended almost exclusively by cognitive psychologists (there were a few neuroscientists in there, as well, though I don’t think any cog. neuros. were there), the speakeres were preaching to the choir.

Of course, some of the animosity from cognitive psychologists has to do with job security. If cognitive neuroscience is, as many cognitive neuroscientists believe (and I’ve heard many of them say this), the best, if not the only way to study cognition, then many of us will be out of a job someday soon. And cognitive neuroscientists have gotten a lot of jobs and grant money over the last decade or so, which also creates animosity between areas, even those as closely related as cog psych and cog neuro.

My own position, after 7 years in the field, is that cognitive neuroscience provides a great starting point, but is nowhere near providing a suitable ending point. It can guide theory and research. For example, if imaging studies indicate that two tasks that ostensibly require different mechanisms lead to a lot of overlapping activation, we can develop the hypothesis that the mechanisms involved in those tasks might be related, and then go out and test that hypothesis experimentally (without imaging). That’s an oversimplified example, I know, but you get the point.

However, I think you have to take any imaging study with a big grain of salt. All imaging methods have serious flaws, and the only way to overcome them is to use a variety of imaging, neurospcyhological, and ordinary cognitive psychological paradigms.

]]> By: Chris Chatham http://brainblogger.com/2006/04/01/studies-brain-imaging-techniques-or-technocolor-phrenology/#comment-94 Chris Chatham Sun, 02 Apr 2006 01:08:00 +0000 http://blog.gnif.org/?p=488#comment-94 Hi tony - nice post. Very controversial. What areas of psychology reject scientific investigations? I think that may be a misconception, a common one about psychology which is unfounded. More accurately, many of the questions posed by certain branches of psychology are not yet addressable with scientific techniques (such as, what is personality? how do you change a personality? etc). On the other hand, several questions which were once scientifically unaddressable are now issues commonly tackled in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience, such as issues regarding consciousness, the origins of knowledge, and the representational nature of thought. Anyway, good to see someone playing the devil's advocate, and I agree that many of the imaging technologies can seem a little bit like phrenology, when interpreted by certain members of the media (some blogs included). Hi tony - nice post. Very controversial.

What areas of psychology reject scientific investigations? I think that may be a misconception, a common one about psychology which is unfounded. More accurately, many of the questions posed by certain branches of psychology are not yet addressable with scientific techniques (such as, what is personality? how do you change a personality? etc).

On the other hand, several questions which were once scientifically unaddressable are now issues commonly tackled in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience, such as issues regarding consciousness, the origins of knowledge, and the representational nature of thought.

Anyway, good to see someone playing the devil’s advocate, and I agree that many of the imaging technologies can seem a little bit like phrenology, when interpreted by certain members of the media (some blogs included).

]]>