Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFedorenko, Evelina
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-03T15:21:04Z
dc.date.available2021-12-09T19:34:40Z
dc.date.available2022-02-03T15:21:04Z
dc.date.issued2021-03
dc.identifier.issn2352-1546
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/138409.2
dc.description.abstractIn the last three decades, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has transformed the field of cognitive neuroscience. A standard analytic approach entails aligning a set of individual activation maps in a common brain space, performing a statistical test in each voxel, and interpreting significant activation clusters with respect to macroanatomic landmarks. In the last several years, however, this group-analytic approach is being increasingly replaced by analyses where neural responses are examined within each brain individually. In this opinion piece, I trace the origins of individual-subject analyses in human neuroscience and speculate on why group analyses had risen vastly in popularity during the 2000s. I then discuss a core problem with group analyses — their limited utility in informing the human cognitive architecture — and talk about how the individual-subject functional localization approach solves this problem. Finally, I discuss other reasons for why researchers have been turning to individual-subject analyses, and argue that such approaches are likely to be the future of human neuroscience.en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BVen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.COBEHA.2021.02.023en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceProf. Fedorenkoen_US
dc.titleThe early origins and the growing popularity of the individual-subject analytic approach in human neuroscienceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationFedorenko, Evelina. 2021. "The early origins and the growing popularity of the individual-subject analytic approach in human neuroscience." Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 40.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences
dc.contributor.departmentMcGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT
dc.relation.journalCurrent Opinion in Behavioral Sciencesen_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's final manuscripten_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2021-12-09T19:30:13Z
dspace.orderedauthorsFedorenko, Een_US
dspace.date.submission2021-12-09T19:30:14Z
mit.journal.volume40en_US
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusAuthority Work Neededen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

VersionItemDateSummary

*Selected version