As much as people are harping on the fact that the study is N=1, the reality is that these researchers have 133 scans over 133 consecutive days, which is impres

As much as people are harping on the fact that the study is N=1, the reality is that these researchers have 133 scans over 133 consecutive days, which is impressive. I think naysayers are missing the point that increasing statistical power through repeated measures over long periods of time rather than just increasing N is totally valid. This is honestly probably a better approach than running more participants across fewer scans for an initial longitudinal fMRI study (e.g. I think this is more compelling than if a study were to run 10 people with only weekly scans).