>The difficulty with this is that it is difficult to interpret a drug x
task
>interaction in a region of the brain that is not activated by the task
in
>the 'no-drug' or placebo condition and therefore this cannot circumvent
the
>problem of differential gain response in different regions on drug.
However,
>it is important to bear in mind that this should not invalidate the
>technique, particularly if your effects are predicted and meaningful.
>
Hello,
I've been following this discussion with much interest. This last point
has
confused me somewhat. I'm not sure why the appearance of a task-related
effect in the presence of the drug (when there is no effect in the
drug's
absence) should be difficult to interpret - or rather any more difficult
to
interpret than the attenuation, augmentation or disappearance of a
regional
task-related effect in response to the drug. Perhaps you could expand
Mitul.
Dear Paul and all,
In response to your specific question, I still believe that it is difficult
to interpret 'new regions' in a drug x task interaction. If you can discount
vascular explanations and IF there are changes in the manner in which the
task is performed on drug (Paul's second point) one would need good
behavioural data in order to back-up such a claim. Thus to account for 'new
regions' a well-thought out task and a well-developed model of how a drug
affects performance would be required - difficult, but not impossible.
Mitul.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|