The early origins and the growing popularity of the individual-subject analytic approach in human neuroscience

In 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 signif...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Fedorenko, Evelina (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier BV, 2021-12-09T19:34:40Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Get fulltext
LEADER 01640 am a22001573u 4500
001 138409
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Fedorenko, Evelina  |e author 
245 0 0 |a The early origins and the growing popularity of the individual-subject analytic approach in human neuroscience 
260 |b Elsevier BV,   |c 2021-12-09T19:34:40Z. 
856 |z Get fulltext  |u https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/138409 
520 |a In 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. 
546 |a en 
655 7 |a Article 
773 |t 10.1016/J.COBEHA.2021.02.023 
773 |t Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences