4 ms·

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 th

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.