FMRI Brain Imaging Completely Unreliable

[mujuro]

This is a little over a year old, but I searched multiple terms and couldn't find any threads.

Scandal: MRI Brain Imaging Completely Unreliable
"They tested the three most popular fMRI software packages for fMRI analysis – SPM, FSL, and AFNI - and while they shouldn’t have found much difference across the groups, the software resulted in false-positive rates of up to 70 percent.”
"... not only did the team expect to see an average false positive rate of just 5 percent, it also suggests that some results were so inaccurate, they could be indicating brain activity where there was none.”

The study:
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates

 

[Makrosky]

 

[peatmás]

Scandal: MRI Brain Imaging Completely Unreliable
The study:
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/o...in-god-or-is-that-a-software-glitch.html?_r=0
“But when you divide the brain into bitty bits and make millions of calculations according to a bunch of inferences, there are abundant opportunities for error, particularly when you are relying on software to do much of the work. This was made glaringly apparent back in 2009, when a graduate student conducted an fM.R.I. scan of a dead salmon and found neural activity in its brain when it was shown photographs of humans in social situations. Again, it was a salmon. And it was dead.”

 

[Frankdee20]

What do people think about validity of fMRI, and SPECT to diagnose, and treat psychiatric conditions accordingly ?

Didn’t intend to digress, just too lazy to open new thread. Lol

I mean people like DR Amen, and how about Dr Braverman in NYC using Q-EEG for the same purpose ?

 

[Owen B]

An MRI just tells you whether an area in the brain is "activated".

It doesn't tell you the valence of the activation. Is there activation out of over-inhibition or over-excitation? There isn't really a lot of good information with an MRI.

A QEEG, however, tells you much more about the activated area. IOW, it's activated because it's reading 20 hz when a more normal reading should be lower. Or, the activation is because you have too much low wave in one area (too much alpha or delta) when you really need higher frequencies there.

 

[Frankdee20]

An MRI just tells you whether an area in the brain is "activated".

It doesn't tell you the valence of the activation. Is there activation out of over-inhibition or over-excitation? There isn't really a lot of good information with an MRI.

A QEEG, however, tells you much more about the activated area. IOW, it's activated because it's reading 20 hz when a more normal reading should be lower. Or, the activation is because you have too much low wave in one area (too much alpha or delta) when you really need higher frequencies there.

Awesome, how about Amen and his Spect scans ?

 

[Owen B]

Awesome, how about Amen and his Spect scans ?

I haven't really looked at Amen and his stuff in a while. though I consider him mostly mainstream, he's one of the few to say positive things about neurofeedback.

I think SPECT and MRIs are probably in the same class. It's mostly a medical model ty,,pe approach, these scans. Even if you get one what are you going to do with it?

Medical model is all about scans, tests and screening as a substitute for health. What's a doctor going to say after you get one of these scans? He's going to recommend psychotropics. I don't know about you but I'm not going there.

If one is interested in working with the brain in a functional way, the only way to go is with neurofeedback. And get a QEEG as well. They often come with connectivity analyses that look directly at overconnections and underconnections throughout the brain. That plus the scan is a lot of good information.

There are a some NFB modalities that are MM IMO, i.e., too symptom based,,but some good programs are:

EEGSpectrum.com

NeuroOptimal

LENS

EEGInfo.com

Google for NFB and biofeedback provider directories and see if there's anyone near you. Those sites above will have their own directories.

 

[Frankdee20]

I haven't really looked at Amen and his stuff in a while. though I consider him mostly mainstream, he's one of the few to say positive things about neurofeedback.

I think SPECT and MRIs are probably in the same class. It's mostly a medical model ty,,pe approach, these scans. Even if you get one what are you going to do with it?

Medical model is all about scans, tests and screening as a substitute for health. What's a doctor going to say after you get one of these scans? He's going to recommend psychotropics. I don't know about you but I'm not going there.

If one is interested in working with the brain in a functional way, the only way to go is with neurofeedback. And get a QEEG as well. They often come with connectivity analyses that look directly at overconnections and underconnections throughout the brain. That plus the scan is a lot of good information.

There are a some NFB modalities that are MM IMO, i.e., too symptom based,,but some good programs are:

EEGSpectrum.com

NeuroOptimal

LENS

EEGInfo.com

Google for NFB and biofeedback provider directories and see if there's anyone near you. Those sites above will have their own directories.

Thanks, awesome. So QUEEG has more applicability to ascertain what imbalances exist than fMRI and spect

 

[Owen B]

Thanks, awesome. So QUEEG has more applicability to ascertain what imbalances exist than fMRI and spect

Right...plus the connectivity analyses you typically get with a QEEG.

Some of those modalities might even use their own maps. LENS (low energy neurofeedback system) uses it's own map which I think consists of 12 areas. Then they work first with the strongest area and then move on to the weaker. This particular method is really not feedback in the traditional sense of inhibits and rewards. They use offsets and resonances to retrain the brain.