I have also published and worked for some years in this field, if that helps.

The literature is huge, and my bias is that I believe most of the only really good fMRI research is methodological research (i.e. about what fMRI actually means, and how to reliably analyze it). Many of the links I've provided here speak to this.

I don't think there is much reliable fMRI research that tells us anything about people, emotions, or cognition, beyond confirming some likely localization of function to the sensory and motor cortices, and some stuff about the Default Mode Network(s) that is of unclear importance.

A lot of the more reliable stuff involves the Human Connectome Project (HCP) fMRI data, since this was done very carefully with a lot of participants, if you want a place to start for actual human-relevant findings. But the field is still really young.

> Saying there are bad comments in this thread and also that there is good literature out there without providing any specifics at all is just noise.

Nah, it's not noise. It's a useful reminder not to take any comments too seriously and that this topic is far outside the average commenter's expertise.

I'll co-sign SubiculumCode's comment -- there's a lot of yelling about how bad fMRI is generally, which is not particularly fair to the fMRI research (or at least the better parts of it) or related to the argument.

The BOLD signal, the thing measured by fMRI, is a proxy for actual brain activity. The logic is that neural firing requires a lot of energy and so active neurons will being using more oxygen for their metabolism, and this oxygen comes from the blood. Thus, if you measure local changes in the oxygenation of blood, you'll know something about how active nearby neurons are. However, it's an indirect and complicated relationship. The blood flow to an area can itself change, or cells could extract more or less oxygen from the blood--the system itself is usually not running at its limits.

Direct measurements from animals, where you can measure (and manipulate) brain activity while measuring BOLD, have shown how complicated this is. Nikos Logathetis and Ralph Freeman's groups, among many others did a lot of work on this, especially c. 2000-2010. If you're interested, you could check out this news and views on Logathetis's group's 2001 Nature paper [1]. One of the conclusions of their work is that BOLD is influenced by a lot of things but largely measure the inputs to an area and the synchrony within it, rather than just the average firing rate.

In this paper, the researchers adjust the MRI sequences to compare blood oxygenation, oxygen usage, and blood flow and find that these are not perfectly related. This is a nice demonstration, but not a totally unexpected finding either. The argument in the paper is also not "abandon fMRI" but rather that you need to measure and interpret these things carefully.

In short, the whole area of neurovascular coupling is hard--it includes complicated physics (to make measurements), tricky chemistry, and messy biology, all in a system full of complicated dynamics and feedback.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/35084300

I hide any thread that deals with education, education funding, or teaching in general for that specific reason. It really saddens me to see that this place is full of so much misinformation and anecdotes made into data (and usually with much more self-confidence than other forums, which is interesting to me).

It's why I generally only ask questions, or ask for clarification instead of directly challenging something I think might be wrong now in threads that aren't related to something I have deeeeep personal knowledge of. I know when I'm out of my area, and don't want to add to the ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

Or worse, your whole field can be insitutionally blind to its own failings and randoms outside of it actually DO know more than you!. Chiropractors are literally worthless and being told "oh you don't get it bro" by them is their cope for being scammers, not an example of "their Gell Mann amnesia"

It makes sense they wouldn't look at it, there are very few, if any, well-validated clinical uses for it. However, they might have taken it as a baseline for later comparison, and it is definitely plausible when surgery is involved that visible abnormalities could be seen in fMRI that might not show up in MRI, either now or later.

I don't think there would be much clear guidance for them on how to interpret any such fMRI abnormality on its own, but it might still be something useful for further investigations, and this might especially be the case for surgery. It might also have been done as part of research, if you consented to anything like that?

I am NOT an expert on fMRI in medical contexts, but you can surely get a rough idea of the potential value of fMRI with a quick search: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=fMRI+surgery+brain&hl=en...

The meaningless NHST ritual is so harmful here. Imagine what we might know by now if all those pointless studies had used their resources to do proper science...