4 ms·

Consider me skeptical. See the dead salmon fMR study for dangers of relying on it too much. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-priz

Consider me skeptical. See the dead salmon fMR study for dangers of relying on it too much. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...

mahkeiro 5y ago
Did you read your link? I quote: "Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats."
- tyingq 5y ago
  Stories I can find about using fMRI to test for consciousness all have the same theme that it's promising, but that there are false positives and no definitive test that tells you for sure.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
omnicognate 5y ago
Interesting article, but as it says: > Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats. And > The original poster almost didn't make it to a conference, but when it did, it made a major splash, and reactions were very positive. And > The authors note that at the time the poster was presented, between 25-40% of studies on fMRI being published were NOT using the corrected comparisons. But by the time this group won the Ignobel last week, that number had dropped to 10%. And who knows, it might, in part, be due to a dead fish. Sounds like the salmon study is evidence of a field with a healthy attitude and improving statistical techniques rather than one that should be seen as discredited.
csdvrx 5y ago
I'm also skeptical of the salmon study, and I would love to see replication results, because another alternative explanation is that, even after clinical death, the brain tissue may still weakly react to stimulis: the "fresh" fish would have been kept in ice due to chain-of-cold requirements (and humans can survive for 30 minute in hypoxia, and recover: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/hypothermia-save-boy-trapped-ice-30-minutes-heartbeat/story?id=9506900 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/hypothermia-save-boy-trapped-i..., turtles up to 6 month https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/survive-without-oxygen/69678/ https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/survive-without-oxygen/...) and other tissues have shown similar feats (heart tissue in the same article) Actually, it'd be sad, because for all we know, dead people could have this limited consciousness without being able to communicate, just like the coma patients! See also the "experiments" proving severed head remain conscious for 30 seconds (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6044102/beheading-experiments-guillotine-severed-heads-remain-alive/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6044102/beheading-experiments-... and https://unrealfacts.com/a-condemned-man-tried-to-keep-blinking-after-his-head-was-cut-off/ https://unrealfacts.com/a-condemned-man-tried-to-keep-blinki... )

mahkeiro 5y ago

Did you read your link? I quote: "Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats."

tyingq 5y ago
Stories I can find about using fMRI to test for consciousness all have the same theme that it's promising, but that there are false positives and no definitive test that tells you for sure.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

omnicognate 5y ago

Interesting article, but as it says: > Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats. And > The original poster almost didn't make it to a conference, but when it did, it made a major splash, and reactions were very positive. And > The authors note that at the time the poster was presented, between 25-40% of studies on fMRI being published were NOT using the corrected comparisons. But by the time this group won the Ignobel last week, that number had dropped to 10%. And who knows, it might, in part, be due to a dead fish. Sounds like the salmon study is evidence of a field with a healthy attitude and improving statistical techniques rather than one that should be seen as discredited.

csdvrx 5y ago

I'm also skeptical of the salmon study, and I would love to see replication results, because another alternative explanation is that, even after clinical death, the brain tissue may still weakly react to stimulis: the "fresh" fish would have been kept in ice due to chain-of-cold requirements (and humans can survive for 30 minute in hypoxia, and recover: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/hypothermia-save-boy-trapped-ice-30-minutes-heartbeat/story?id=9506900 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/hypothermia-save-boy-trapped-i..., turtles up to 6 month https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/survive-without-oxygen/69678/ https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/survive-without-oxygen/...) and other tissues have shown similar feats (heart tissue in the same article) Actually, it'd be sad, because for all we know, dead people could have this limited consciousness without being able to communicate, just like the coma patients! See also the "experiments" proving severed head remain conscious for 30 seconds (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6044102/beheading-experiments-guillotine-severed-heads-remain-alive/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6044102/beheading-experiments-... and https://unrealfacts.com/a-condemned-man-tried-to-keep-blinking-after-his-head-was-cut-off/ https://unrealfacts.com/a-condemned-man-tried-to-keep-blinki... )