Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: fMRI is statistically unreliable...one more hole in the "evidence" for TCM

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    This is why it is important to continuously test everything.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  2. #2
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corner of somewhere and where am I
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by boxerbilly View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corner of somewhere and where am I
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    This is why it is important to continuously test everything.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •