Article

Five best practices for fMRI research: Towards a biologically grounded understanding of mental phenomena

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Mills-Finnerty, Colleen

Other kind(s) of contributor

Stanford University
Veterans Administration Palo Alto

Abstract / Description

The replication crisis in science has not spared functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research. A range of issues including insufficient control of false positives, code bugs, concern regarding generalizability and replicability of findings, inadequate characterization of physiological confounds, over-mining of repository datasets, and the small sample sizes/low power of many early studies have led to hearty debate in both the field and the press about the usefulness and viability of fMRI. Others still see enormous potential for fMRI in diagnosing conditions that do not otherwise lend themselves to non-invasive biological measurement, from chronic pain to neurological and psychiatric illness. How do we reconcile the limitations of fMRI with the hype over its potential? Despite many papers hailed by the press as the nail in the coffin for fMRI, from the dead salmon incident of 2009 to cluster failure more recently, funders, researchers, and the general public do not seem to have reduced their appetite for pictures of brain maps, or gadgets with the word “neuro” in the name. Multiple blogs exist for the sole purpose of criticizing such enterprise. The replicability crisis should certainly give ‘neuroimagers’ pause, and reason to soul-search. It is more important than ever to clarify when fMRI is and when it is not useful. The method remains the best noninvasive imaging tool for many research questions, however imperfect and imprecise it may be. However, to address past limitations, I argue neuroimaging researchers planning future studies need to consider the following five factors: power/effect size, design optimization, replicability, physiological confounds, and data sharing.

Keyword(s)

fMRI open science

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2021-03-24

Journal title

Journal for Reproducibility in Neuroscience

Volume

2

Article number

1517

Publisher

University of Helsinki Libraries

Publication status

publishedVersion

Review status

notReviewed

Is version of

Citation

Mills-Finnerty, C. (2021). Five best practices for fMRI research: Towards a biologically grounded understanding of mental phenomena. Journal for Reproducibility in Neuroscience, 2, 1517. https://doi.org/10.31885/jrn.2.2021.1517
  • jrn.2.2021.1517.pdf
    Adobe PDF - 172.34KB
    MD5: ec556914dd92ded6ca5edd636b4df267
     Download
    Description: Version of Record
    Rationale for choice of sharing level: Papers published in the Journal for Reproducibility in Neuroscience are CC BY-SA (https://journals.helsinki.fi/jrn/about)
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Mills-Finnerty, Colleen
  • Other kind(s) of contributor
    Stanford University
  • Other kind(s) of contributor
    Veterans Administration Palo Alto
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2022-03-09T12:51:46Z
  • Made available on
    2022-03-09T12:51:46Z
  • Date of first publication
    2021-03-24
  • Abstract / Description
    The replication crisis in science has not spared functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research. A range of issues including insufficient control of false positives, code bugs, concern regarding generalizability and replicability of findings, inadequate characterization of physiological confounds, over-mining of repository datasets, and the small sample sizes/low power of many early studies have led to hearty debate in both the field and the press about the usefulness and viability of fMRI. Others still see enormous potential for fMRI in diagnosing conditions that do not otherwise lend themselves to non-invasive biological measurement, from chronic pain to neurological and psychiatric illness. How do we reconcile the limitations of fMRI with the hype over its potential? Despite many papers hailed by the press as the nail in the coffin for fMRI, from the dead salmon incident of 2009 to cluster failure more recently, funders, researchers, and the general public do not seem to have reduced their appetite for pictures of brain maps, or gadgets with the word “neuro” in the name. Multiple blogs exist for the sole purpose of criticizing such enterprise. The replicability crisis should certainly give ‘neuroimagers’ pause, and reason to soul-search. It is more important than ever to clarify when fMRI is and when it is not useful. The method remains the best noninvasive imaging tool for many research questions, however imperfect and imprecise it may be. However, to address past limitations, I argue neuroimaging researchers planning future studies need to consider the following five factors: power/effect size, design optimization, replicability, physiological confounds, and data sharing.
    en
  • Publication status
    publishedVersion
  • Review status
    notReviewed
  • Citation
    Mills-Finnerty, C. (2021). Five best practices for fMRI research: Towards a biologically grounded understanding of mental phenomena. Journal for Reproducibility in Neuroscience, 2, 1517. https://doi.org/10.31885/jrn.2.2021.1517
  • ISSN
    2670-3815
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/4999
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.5600
  • Language of content
    eng
  • Publisher
    University of Helsinki Libraries
  • Is version of
    https://doi.org/10.31885/jrn.2.2021.1517
  • Keyword(s)
    fMRI
    en
  • Keyword(s)
    open science
    en
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    Five best practices for fMRI research: Towards a biologically grounded understanding of mental phenomena
    en
  • DRO type
    article
  • Article number
    1517
  • Journal title
    Journal for Reproducibility in Neuroscience
    en
  • Volume
    2
  • Visible tag(s)
    JRepNeurosci