An implicit assumption of commentary here is that no one has bothered to test how reliable task and resting state fMRI results are. But that simply is not the c

An implicit assumption of commentary here is that no one has bothered to test how reliable task and resting state fMRI results are. But that simply is not the case: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,47&q=%22test+retest+reliability%22++fmri&scisbd=1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,47&q=%22te... Results are: from poor to excellent, depending on task, sample, methodology. Speaking as someone who had conducted longitudinal fMRI analyses, I would say two things: 1) its been fairly well established that within-individual correlations of BOLD is generally higher than between-individual 2) within-individual correlation can be weak to moderate, but group-level patterns are very often quite robust. For example, in a cognitive control task you are going to see presupplemental motor area, dorsal anterior cingulate, anterior insula, and so on. For risk tasks, you are going to find that anterior insula correlates with risk; for learning tasks, you are going to find striatum signals for reward prediction errors. I encourage people to visit Neurosynth, which performs automated metanalyses. Here, for example, are results for "prediction error" after accounting for activation that occurs generally during tasks: https://neurosynth.org/analyses/terms/prediction%20error/ https://neurosynth.org/analyses/terms/prediction%20error/ and here for "interference" https://neurosynth.org/analyses/terms/interference/ https://neurosynth.org/analyses/terms/interference/ (default mode network and task-positive networks anti-correlate in activity, another super-reliable result)