4 ms·
It seems like there are two main points here. 1. fMRI only measure brain activity indirectly. 2. Nothing stops people from messing with any one parameter, sett
by KingMachiavelli 6y ago
It seems like there are two main points here.
1. fMRI only measure brain activity indirectly.
2. Nothing stops people from messing with any one parameter, setting, statistical knob out of houndreds.
I don't know if #1 is a problem itself. We measure many things indirectly. As long as the limitations are known and respected, it is still useful.
#2 Is the real issue. What we need is a movement towards saving and publishing the the actual data as close to the hardware as possible. But I'm sure medical hardware is full of quirky, proprietary Windows CE junk that makes this almost impossible.
I don't know what the solution is. If the healthcare industry wanted better software they would have to pay even more than they already do. Cheaper and better software doesn't happen because those companies and developers would rather work elsewhere. Real disruptors will have a hard time convincing the 100 vendors they need to integrate with to change their ways.
It seems that large industries will always be 10-15 years behind 'what they should be'.
- stinos 6y agoWhat we need is a movement towards saving and publishing the the actual data as close to the hardware as possible. But I'm sure medical hardware is full of quirky, proprietary Windows CE junk that makes this almost impossible. It's always easy to blame proprietary junk. But in this case, from the couple of things I know about it, I don't think the real problem in publishing actual data is that it's proprietary. Rather that doing something with that data is very hard. To the point that if you don't know how to build an MRI scanner, you probably also don't know how to transform the raw data into a usable and correct image.