功能神经成像能告诉实验心理学家什么?

Richard Henson
{"title":"功能神经成像能告诉实验心理学家什么?","authors":"Richard Henson","doi":"10.1080/02724980443000502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>I argue here that functional neuroimaging data--which I restrict to the haemodynamic techniques of fMRI and PET--can inform psychological theorizing, provided one assumes a \"systematic\" function-structure mapping in the brain. In this case, imaging data simply comprise another dependent variable, along with behavioural data, that can be used to test competing theories. In particular, I distinguish two types of inference: function-to-structure deduction and structure-to-function induction. With the former inference, a qualitatively different pattern of activity over the brain under two experimental conditions implies at least one different function associated with changes in the independent variable. With the second type of inference, activity of the same brain region(s) under two conditions implies a common function, possibly not predicted a priori. I illustrate these inferences with imaging studies of recognition memory, short-term memory, and repetition priming. I then consider in greater detail what is meant by a \"systematic\" function-structure mapping and argue that, particularly for structure-to-function induction, this entails a one-to-one mapping between functional and structural units, although the structural unit may be a network of interacting regions and care must be taken over the appropriate level of functional/structural abstraction. Nonetheless, the assumption of a systematic function-structure mapping is a \"working hypothesis\" that, in common with other scientific fields, cannot be proved on independent grounds and is probably best evaluated by the success of the enterprise as a whole. I also consider statistical issues such as the definition of a qualitative difference and methodological issues such as the relationship between imaging and behavioural data. I finish by reviewing various objections to neuroimaging, including neophrenology, functionalism, and equipotentiality, and by observing some criticisms of current practice in the imaging literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":77437,"journal":{"name":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","volume":"58 2","pages":"193-233"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02724980443000502","citationCount":"337","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What can functional neuroimaging tell the experimental psychologist?\",\"authors\":\"Richard Henson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02724980443000502\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>I argue here that functional neuroimaging data--which I restrict to the haemodynamic techniques of fMRI and PET--can inform psychological theorizing, provided one assumes a \\\"systematic\\\" function-structure mapping in the brain. In this case, imaging data simply comprise another dependent variable, along with behavioural data, that can be used to test competing theories. In particular, I distinguish two types of inference: function-to-structure deduction and structure-to-function induction. With the former inference, a qualitatively different pattern of activity over the brain under two experimental conditions implies at least one different function associated with changes in the independent variable. With the second type of inference, activity of the same brain region(s) under two conditions implies a common function, possibly not predicted a priori. I illustrate these inferences with imaging studies of recognition memory, short-term memory, and repetition priming. I then consider in greater detail what is meant by a \\\"systematic\\\" function-structure mapping and argue that, particularly for structure-to-function induction, this entails a one-to-one mapping between functional and structural units, although the structural unit may be a network of interacting regions and care must be taken over the appropriate level of functional/structural abstraction. Nonetheless, the assumption of a systematic function-structure mapping is a \\\"working hypothesis\\\" that, in common with other scientific fields, cannot be proved on independent grounds and is probably best evaluated by the success of the enterprise as a whole. I also consider statistical issues such as the definition of a qualitative difference and methodological issues such as the relationship between imaging and behavioural data. I finish by reviewing various objections to neuroimaging, including neophrenology, functionalism, and equipotentiality, and by observing some criticisms of current practice in the imaging literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology\",\"volume\":\"58 2\",\"pages\":\"193-233\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02724980443000502\",\"citationCount\":\"337\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000502\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 337

摘要

我认为,功能神经成像数据——我将其限制在fMRI和PET的血流动力学技术——可以为心理学理论提供信息,前提是假设大脑中存在“系统的”功能结构映射。在这种情况下,成像数据只是包含了另一个因变量,以及行为数据,可以用来测试相互竞争的理论。特别地,我区分了两种类型的推理:功能到结构的演绎和结构到功能的归纳。根据前一种推断,在两种实验条件下,大脑活动的性质不同模式意味着至少有一种不同的功能与自变量的变化有关。在第二种推理中,同一大脑区域在两种情况下的活动意味着一个共同的功能,可能不是先验预测的。我用识别记忆、短期记忆和重复启动的成像研究来说明这些推论。然后,我更详细地考虑了“系统的”功能-结构映射的含义,并认为,特别是对于结构-功能的归纳,这需要功能和结构单元之间的一对一映射,尽管结构单元可能是一个相互作用区域的网络,必须注意适当的功能/结构抽象级别。尽管如此,系统的功能-结构映射的假设是一个“工作假设”,与其他科学领域一样,不能在独立的基础上证明,可能最好的评价是整个企业的成功。我也考虑统计问题,如定性差异的定义和方法问题,如成像和行为数据之间的关系。最后,我回顾了对神经影像学的各种反对意见,包括新颅相学、功能主义和等电位,并观察了对当前影像学文献中实践的一些批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What can functional neuroimaging tell the experimental psychologist?

I argue here that functional neuroimaging data--which I restrict to the haemodynamic techniques of fMRI and PET--can inform psychological theorizing, provided one assumes a "systematic" function-structure mapping in the brain. In this case, imaging data simply comprise another dependent variable, along with behavioural data, that can be used to test competing theories. In particular, I distinguish two types of inference: function-to-structure deduction and structure-to-function induction. With the former inference, a qualitatively different pattern of activity over the brain under two experimental conditions implies at least one different function associated with changes in the independent variable. With the second type of inference, activity of the same brain region(s) under two conditions implies a common function, possibly not predicted a priori. I illustrate these inferences with imaging studies of recognition memory, short-term memory, and repetition priming. I then consider in greater detail what is meant by a "systematic" function-structure mapping and argue that, particularly for structure-to-function induction, this entails a one-to-one mapping between functional and structural units, although the structural unit may be a network of interacting regions and care must be taken over the appropriate level of functional/structural abstraction. Nonetheless, the assumption of a systematic function-structure mapping is a "working hypothesis" that, in common with other scientific fields, cannot be proved on independent grounds and is probably best evaluated by the success of the enterprise as a whole. I also consider statistical issues such as the definition of a qualitative difference and methodological issues such as the relationship between imaging and behavioural data. I finish by reviewing various objections to neuroimaging, including neophrenology, functionalism, and equipotentiality, and by observing some criticisms of current practice in the imaging literature.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信