Cited by 73Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Interpreting developmental changes in neuroimaging signals

Open access
Poldrack, Russell A.·2010·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

The imaging of developmental changes in brain function is challenging, but great strides have been made in addressing many of the conceptual issues that this work raises. I highlight a set of issues that remain to be addressed in this literature. First, I argue that the appeal to developmental neurobiology is often misplaced, as it focuses on neurodevelopmental processes that are mostly completed by the age at which neuroimaging studies can be performed. Second, I argue that the concept of “normative” development needs to be reexamined, as it reflects fundamental value judgments about brain development that seem inappropriate for scientific investigation. Third, I examine the ways in which developmental changes are often interpreted, arguing that common interpretations, including the concepts of “efficiency” and “focalization” may be less useful than commonly supposed. To put developmental neuroimaging on stronger footing, we need to develop stronger connections between computational and neurobiological accounts of developmental changes. Hum Brain Mapp, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.21039

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 73

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mareschal D (2007): Neuroconstructivism. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press.

Authors
Poldrack, R. A.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Poldrack, Russell A.
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05-14
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
872-878
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2082975151
Cited by
73
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
developmental neuroimaging, brain development, developmental neuroscience, normative development, focalization
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review