Interpreting developmental changes in neuroimaging signals
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
fMRI activation does not distinguish inhibitory from excitatory neuronal firing, and assigning an excitatory or inhibitory role requires additional measures like behavior or functional connectivity.
“Activation does not differentiate between the firing of inhibitory vs. excitatory neurons and the implication of an excitatory role vs. inhibitory role requires the use of qualifying variables, such as behavior or functional connectivity.”
From A systematic review of fMRI reward paradigms used in studies of adolescents vs. adults: The impact of task design and implications for understanding neurodevelopment (2013) · cites this paper as Poldrack, 2010
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
- 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.
- ORCID
- 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
- PMC
- PMC6870770
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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