 |
 |
Thanks Joe and Russ for these thoughtful replies, I posed the question because there is a chronometric tradition within experimental/cognitive psychology that might disagree with the relatively stronger inference being ascribed to neuroimaging data here (some of my cognitivist colleagues have already taken me to task about this), given that the presence of a cognitive process of interest hasn't been established in the traditional sense. Regards, Greig on 31/05/01 5:54 PM, Joseph T. Devlin at [log in to unmask] wrote: > I agree with Russ -- the imaging could well be sensitive to effects not seen > in RT data. I think the many studies which have demonstrated "implicit" > neural processing are good examples of this. This extra sensitivity comes > from the fact that RT (or error data) is a very indirect measure of the > underlying neural/cognitive processes because it provides a single score for a > combination of processes. rCBF or BOLD are also indirect measures of neural > activity but you get many thousands of measures and each is more closely > related > to regional neural activity than any behavioural measure. Consequently your > imaging analysis may be more sensitive to "implicit" processes, which in many > cases are interesting/revealing. > > - Joe