Running to fMRI in an attempt to prove a mechanism before anyone has even proven an effect is bad enough science anyways. But it looks like even that is useless.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.full
Running to fMRI in an attempt to prove a mechanism before anyone has even proven an effect is bad enough science anyways. But it looks like even that is useless.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.full
Yep - along with all your beloved "evidence based medicine" that used it as well.
This is why it is important to continuously test everything.
Not sure if Ive ever had this. Ive had a handful of mris done in the last 5 years. Most recent was a 2.25 hour in an clam shell for neck and back. Ive also been in the pipe for cranial and cervical reasons and also for my back. Being claustrophobic sucks !!!! Focus on the breath. Focus on the breath. Pick a spot and stare. Pick a spot and stare. Don't move. Don't move. They have to start over if you move. Don't move. Yep, did it with out a hitch all times and ran when I was done.
There's a difference between the MRI used commonly in clinical practice and fMRI. This thread is only in reference to fMRI. To be more specific, its about the validity of the statistical methods used to analyze fMRI imaging. The imaging itself is still useful. It just needs to be approached very carefully. Which makes it no different than any other tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxerbilly
The issue here is more to do with researchers not relying on a black box in the statistical analysis software. The problem with that though is, there's simply not enough time in one life to master neurophysiology and complex statistics and computer programming. Throw into that the fact that these researchers are all mostly graduate students (since cognitive science exists largely in academia). At some point, you have to rely on the programmers to create a tool that is properly vetted. What we're seeing here is that validation hasn't been completed.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
Ummm, it was the science that goes into evidence based medicine that discovered this problem. Your point is what exactly? That you don't know the difference between commonly used magnetic imaging in a clinical setting vs. fMRI? Everyone should love evidence based medicine. Unless, of course, you're a shill for big acupuncture. Have I stated how funny it is that for as much as you people (you, Dale, etc.) like to prattle on about pharmaceuticals, you all are just pawns to a profit seeking industry yourselves? Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by herb ox
The skepticism of fMRI isn't new, its been brought up for a while now.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-salmon-study/
In clinical practice, its use has largely been restricted to pre-operative neurosurgical planning. But even here, its only one tool used. And that is the difference. This is just a criticism of one tool in the box, not the entire field. You can't say the same. Which is why your post is amusing to me. In falling prey to this logical fallacy you've just walked into, you truly illustrate the dire state of your worldview. You can only go forward by willfully engaged ignorance. But lets be real, lack of evidence has yet to stop your types from preying on a vulnerable population, so this won't do anything to cause you to reassess your practices.
Clearly, sir, you have time on your hands, and energy to spare.
I have neither to devote to your incessant arguments.
Good day
Taking your toys and going home, are you? I clock less than 0.4 posts/day. Hardly "incessant". You're just lacking in the capacity to 1) defend your practice against scrutiny and 2) the maturity to admit you've been chasing the white rabbit. All the world's myths fall before the judgement of evidence. Yours is no different.Quote:
Originally Posted by herb ox