The reverse inference problem fMRI: L10 Flashcards
define reverse inference
drawing conclusions about cognitive processes from the presence of activation
what do psychologists actually want to understand?
- the mental architecture underlying functions
- gather evidence for engagement of mental/cognitive processes in a particular task
what is “wrong” with the following logic:
when cognitive process X, brain region Z is active
- not exclusive
- > brain region Z may be active for many tasks, not just in X
what have researchers concluded about more 1. anterior regions (towards front)
2. posterior regions
- represent more abstract information
2. more specific content
- dorsal axis
2. ventral axis
- abstractness of rules
2. abstractness of memory, representations/retrieval
what did Duncan argue?
- frontal cortex shows relative but not absolute specialisation
- > prefrontal regions might be recruited “more strongly” if the task at hand becomes more difficult
What did Duncan argue about other brain regions?
-> problem
- this was true for other regions as well (recruited if task becomes difficult)
- > if we find an activated region, part of this “multiple-demand” network, we don’t know what each part is contributing
what is the multi-demand network?
- remembering word/non-word strings, arithmetic, spatial working memory, verbal working memory, and three versions of resisting response conflict
What did Poldrack say about reverse inference?
- if the experimental setup fails to manipulate the cognitive process of interest, it cannot provide useful information about the process
Problem highlighted by Poldrack
how good task A is for understanding cognitive process X
-> if the task measures more than one cognitive function we dont learn much
how did Poldrack express these problems?
- in probabilistic terms
The probability that we learn from our fMRI results that cognitive process X is involved depends on? (2)
- the quality of the task to measure the cognitive process
2. the specificity of region fro this cognitive process
- P(COGTASK)
- P(ACTCOG)
= we can use this design to?
- the probability of the task measure the cognitive process (unobservable) -> cognitive process
- the probability of activation occurring in the brain for a particular cognitive process (observable) -> fMRI activation
= make better experiments and inferences
a problem highlighted by Kamitani & Tong?
-overinterpretation of null results
what does it mean if you find no region was significantly stronger activated for task A vs task B?
-> what should we always avoid doing?
- we dont know
- statistical tests aren’t designed to make Ho difficult, so we can’t interpret null results
- out method might not be sensitive enough to detect small differences
- > concluding that brain regions are not involved in a cognitive process