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 sciencePersistent 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.pdfAdobe PDF - 172.34KBMD5: ec556914dd92ded6ca5edd636b4df267Description: Version of RecordRationale for choice of sharing level: Papers published in the Journal for Reproducibility in Neuroscience are CC BY-SA (https://journals.helsinki.fi/jrn/about)
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Mills-Finnerty, Colleen
-
Other kind(s) of contributorStanford University
-
Other kind(s) of contributorVeterans Administration Palo Alto
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2022-03-09T12:51:46Z
-
Made available on2022-03-09T12:51:46Z
-
Date of first publication2021-03-24
-
Abstract / DescriptionThe 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 statuspublishedVersion
-
Review statusnotReviewed
-
CitationMills-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
-
ISSN2670-3815
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/4999
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.5600
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherUniversity of Helsinki Libraries
-
Is version ofhttps://doi.org/10.31885/jrn.2.2021.1517
-
Keyword(s)fMRIen
-
Keyword(s)open scienceen
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleFive best practices for fMRI research: Towards a biologically grounded understanding of mental phenomenaen
-
DRO typearticle
-
Article number1517
-
Journal titleJournal for Reproducibility in Neuroscienceen
-
Volume2
-
Visible tag(s)JRepNeurosci