In my last post, I wrote a long commentary on a recent PNAS article by Lieberman & Eisenberger claiming to find evidence that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is “selective for pain” using my Neurosynth framework for large-scale fMRI meta-analysis. I argued that nothing about Neurosynth supports any of L&E’s major conclusions, and that they … Continue reading Still not selective: comment on comment on comment on Lieberman & Eisenberger (2015)
[Update 12/10/2015: Lieberman & Eisenberger have now posted a lengthy response to this post here. I’ll post my own reply to their reply in the next few days.] [Update 12/14/2015: I’ve posted an even lengthier reply to L&E’s reply here.] [Update 12/16/2015: Alex Shackman has posted an interesting commentary of his own on the L&E paper. … Continue reading No, the dorsal anterior cingulate is not selective for pain: comment on Lieberman and Eisenberger (2015)
After writing my last post critiquing Karl Friston’s commentary in NeuroImage, I emailed him the link, figuring he might want the opportunity to respond, and also to make sure he knew my commentary wasn’t intended as a personal attack (I have enormous respect for his seminal contributions to the field of neuroimaging). Here’s his very … Continue reading A very classy reply from Karl Friston
UPDATE: I’ve posted a very classy email response from Friston here. In a “comments and controversies” piece published in NeuroImage last week, Karl Friston describes “Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers”. As the title suggests, the piece is presented ironically; Friston frames it as a series of guidelines reviewers can follow in order to ensure … Continue reading Sixteen is not magic: Comment on Friston (2012)
Tor Wager and I have a “news and views” piece in Nature Methods this week; we discuss a paper by Mantini and colleagues (in the same issue) introducing a new method for identifying functional brain homologies across different species–essentially, identifying brain regions in humans and monkeys that seem to do roughly the same thing even if they’re … Continue reading a human and a monkey walk into an fMRI scanner…
I have a short opinion piece in the latest issue of The European Health Psychologist that discusses some of the caveats and limits of functional MRI. It’s a short and (I think) pretty readable piece; I touch on a couple of issues I’ve discussed frequently in other papers as well as here on the blog–namely, … Continue reading what Ben Parker wants you to know about neuroimaging
UPDATE: the webcast is now archived here for posterity. This is kind of late notice and probably of interest to few people, but I’m giving the NIF webinar tomorrow (or today, depending on your time zone–either way, we’re talking about November 1st). I’ll be talking about Neurosynth, and focusing in particular on the methods … Continue reading see me flub my powerpoint slides on NIF tv!
Several people left enlightening comments on my last post about the ADHD-200 Global Competition results, so I thought I’d bump some of them up and save you the trip back there (though the others are worth reading too!), since they’re salient to some of the issues raised in the last post. Matthew Brown, the project … Continue reading more on the ADHD-200 competition results
UPDATE 10/13: a number of commenters left interesting comments below addressing some of the issues raised in this post. I expand on some of them here. The ADHD-200 Global Competition, announced earlier this year, was designed to encourage researchers to develop better tools for diagnosing mental health disorders on the basis of neuroimaging data: The … Continue reading brain-based prediction of ADHD–now with 100% fewer brains!
Over the last few days the commotion over Martin Lindstrom’s terrible New York Times iPhone loving Op-Ed, which I wrote about in my last post, seems to have spread far and wide. Highlights include excellent posts by David Dobbs and the Neurocritic, but really there are too many to list at this point. And the … Continue reading aftermath of the NYT / Lindstrom debacle