Cited by 265Undergraduate Neuroscience Education and ResearchNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

What is a representative brain? Neuroscience meets population science

Open access
Falk, Emily B., Hyde, Luke W., Mitchell, Colter, Faul, Jessica, Gonzalez, Richard, Heitzeg, Mary M., Keating, Daniel P., Langa, Kenneth M. +11 more·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The last decades of neuroscience research have produced immense progress in the methods available to understand brain structure and function. Social, cognitive, clinical, affective, economic, communication, and developmental neurosciences have begun to map the relationships between neuro-psychological processes and behavioral outcomes, yielding a new understanding of human behavior and promising interventions. However, a limitation of this fast moving research is that most findings are based on small samples of convenience. Furthermore, our understanding of individual differences may be distorted by unrepresentative samples, undermining findings regarding brain-behavior mechanisms. These limitations are issues that social demographers, epidemiologists, and other population scientists have tackled, with solutions that can be applied to neuroscience. By contrast, nearly all social science disciplines, including social demography, sociology, political science, economics, communication science, and psychology, make assumptions about processes that involve the brain, but have incorporated neural measures to differing, and often limited, degrees; many still treat the brain as a black box. In this article, we describe and promote a perspective--population neuroscience--that leverages interdisciplinary expertise to (i) emphasize the importance of sampling to more clearly define the relevant populations and sampling strategies needed when using neuroscience methods to address such questions; and (ii) deepen understanding of mechanisms within population science by providing insight regarding underlying neural mechanisms. Doing so will increase our confidence in the generalizability of the findings. We provide examples to illustrate the population neuroscience approach for specific types of research questions and discuss the potential for theoretical and applied advances from this approach across areas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1310134110

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Falk, E. B., Hyde, L. W., Mitchell, C., Faul, J., Gonzalez, R., Heitzeg, M. M., Keating, D. P., Langa, K. M., Martz, M. E., Maslowsky, J., Morrison, F. J., Noll, D. C., Patrick, M. E., Pfeffer, F. T., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Thomason, M. E., Davis-Kean, P., Monk, C. S., & Schulenberg, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Psychology,
  • Psychiatry,
  • VA Center for Clinical Management Research (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Biomedical Engineering;
  • Survey Research Center, and
  • Institute for Social Research (NO)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-10-22
Volume
110
Issue
44
Pages
17615-17622
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2118518216
Cited by
265
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (7dp2da035156-02)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA012217)
  • National Institute on Aging (U01 AG 09740, U01AG009740)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DP2DA035156-01, DP2 DA035156, R01DA027261)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Undergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
sample representativeness, individual differences, generalizability of findings, neural mechanisms, interdisciplinary neuroscience, social demography, population science
MeSH terms
Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Neurosciences, Interdisciplinary Communication, Neuroimaging

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