4 ms·

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense: fMRI is a perfectly legit technique (and it's not exactly interchangeable with PET). It is certainly true that there have

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense: fMRI is a perfectly legit technique (and it's not exactly interchangeable with PET). It is certainly true that there have been dubious and over-interpreted fMRI studies. As a technique, fMRI sits at a really awkward nexus where it is easy to do something but much harder to it well. Nevertheless, it can be done well. It just involves thinking hard about a lot of thorny problems, ranging from the signal itself (fMRI measures blood oxygenation, which is linked--indirectly--to neural activity), how it's measured, and how to analyze large volumes of data with unusual spatial and temporal correlation structures, plus the substantive research question on top! The only people who systematically look down on fMRI are insecure first year grad students who think their work is more "science-y" because it involves lasers or whatever rather than asking people about feelings. I guarantee you that many other fields (cough single-cell seq cough) have similar statistical problems; it's just fMRI hit them first and hit them hard: salmon-like mistakes are rare these days. As for PET, the ability to track things other than blood oxygenation is awesome, but the resolution is much worse and the radioactivity also limits its use. There is no magic tool; it's combinations that let us understand stuff.

antegamisou 4y ago
You’ve made some good points but just to clarify: I was stating what I perceived to be the general consensus among neuroscientists on fMRI (which btw makes the 'nonsense' labeling come off at least … unnecessary, if not rude) and since it seems PET imaging is on every study where various rates (glucose metabolism during RAPM testing is one iirc) are being measured during specific mental tasks subjects are submitted (or even studies on personality traits), I erroneously concluded fMRI had been 'grown out of' so to speak.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  The “look down on it” bit hit a nerve because it is sort of true: there’s an archetype of bro-y “I do _real_ science” first year grad students who do think that. They (usually) grow out of it eventually, but usually not before demoralizing a classmate or two. I don’t think this is the general consensus among most neuroscientists though (I am one, but do neurophysiology rather than fMRI). Jack Gallant’s group, which I linked below, has produced a bunch of very smart people. There are some fMRI folks in the National Academy of Sciences, at the NIH, etc. It’s the real deal. I’m curious where you’re seeing newer glucose PET stuff. We have a radiochemistry group downstairs and I thought most of the excitement was now custom tracers for specific receptors.

antegamisou 4y ago

You’ve made some good points but just to clarify: I was stating what I perceived to be the general consensus among neuroscientists on fMRI (which btw makes the 'nonsense' labeling come off at least … unnecessary, if not rude) and since it seems PET imaging is on every study where various rates (glucose metabolism during RAPM testing is one iirc) are being measured during specific mental tasks subjects are submitted (or even studies on personality traits), I erroneously concluded fMRI had been 'grown out of' so to speak.

mattkrause 4y ago
The “look down on it” bit hit a nerve because it is sort of true: there’s an archetype of bro-y “I do _real_ science” first year grad students who do think that. They (usually) grow out of it eventually, but usually not before demoralizing a classmate or two. I don’t think this is the general consensus among most neuroscientists though (I am one, but do neurophysiology rather than fMRI). Jack Gallant’s group, which I linked below, has produced a bunch of very smart people. There are some fMRI folks in the National Academy of Sciences, at the NIH, etc. It’s the real deal. I’m curious where you’re seeing newer glucose PET stuff. We have a radiochemistry group downstairs and I thought most of the excitement was now custom tracers for specific receptors.