I'm curious for your perspective on recent advances in commercial neuroimaging tech, e.g.
connectomics systems for surgical assistance like o8t.com
Openwater's ultrasound based system that is now in pre-sale
Kernel's td-FNIRS wearable
the irony to me is that the comparison for anything new is the "clinical standard" of legacy rater survey tools that are 40-50 years old and incredibly subjective and variable.
I'm not familiar with the particular manufacturers, so can't really give an opinion on that. But in terms of techniques:
In general, it seems like connectome work has come a long way in the last decade or so, both in humans and non-humans. Which is great! But even having a full connectome isn't going to tell us everything about a brain--it's an important piece of the puzzle, but far from the whole thing.
FNIRs is great as a lightweight alternative to fMRI or EEG, and has its place in research, but has similar drawbacks to both of them--measures a proxy for brain activity, has movement artifacts, and poor spatial resolution. One nice use I've seen for them is in infants/young children where fMRI and EEG are less practical because the subject is... less cooperative.
All of these are great and show progress on our measures of neural activity, but seem like incremental advances rather than the breakthrough going to let us crack the thing wide open IMO
In animals, genetic manipulation has opened up a lot of doors, like optogenetics (allowing you to manipulate neural activity with light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics). I haven't kept up with it, but I suspect with advancing genetic tools, more doors will be opened--like perhaps optical imaging in more model organisms, or other totally new tools.
What language would you prefer? Calling it a disorder isn't inconsistent with the statement that neurodivergent people have hugely varied skills and abilities. The NIH, CDC, and autism advocacy groups like Autism Speaks, all call it a disorder. The term "Autism Spectrum Disorder" is extremely common.
Your comparison with diagnosis of the operation of a digital circuit is interesting but I wonder whether a better analogy would be electron beam testing of semiconductor circuits? See for example
I have no recent knowledge of this topic but in the case of circuit testing we the investigation would have access to sophisticated modeling of the analogue switching behaviour and large scale behavioural models of the digital operation.
Great article, but discouraging for someone who is interested in pursuing psychology and wants to figure out how her brain works. What is your advice for not getting discouraged enough to give up this inquiry?
The brain is the most important thing to understand that I can imagine. Understanding it is about understanding ourselves, the kinds of creatures we are, and the mechanisms that make us up.
Our picture of the brain is fuzzy, and it takes a lot of work to clarify it. But that doesn't mean we don't already have a rich (fuzzy) picture now that is worth learning about because of how much it tells us about ourselves. We might not understand things at the same level as a computer, but we have an understanding of a lot of the different systems at work.
The difficulty of studying the brain also means there are lots of areas to make original contributions to, if original research is of interest.
Thanks, but I asked for advice in keeping yourself emotionally and mentally balanced when working in a field that is theoretically and practically uncertain.
This might help: I come from the humanities and worked as a translator for a decade, where technology and new developments are, in general, seen as a threat. For me, it was a revelation to see how scientists view uncertainty as potential - not knowing the answers and knowing that there is still a long way to go is exciting. Instead of seeing a threat, they see questions to answer and knowledge to discover. That's something that I've learnt to love too.
But how do we know we are not leading ourselves astray in the process? Do we always have keep vigilance over our cognitive biases that force us to practice intellectual humility? And doesn't science pose more questions than answers anyway?
There are answers and then there are new questions and new answers to find :) I think being wary of unreliable sources is more important than cognitive biases, although it's good to keep both in mind.
Another awesome article. Thanks!
I'm curious for your perspective on recent advances in commercial neuroimaging tech, e.g.
connectomics systems for surgical assistance like o8t.com
Openwater's ultrasound based system that is now in pre-sale
Kernel's td-FNIRS wearable
the irony to me is that the comparison for anything new is the "clinical standard" of legacy rater survey tools that are 40-50 years old and incredibly subjective and variable.
I'm not familiar with the particular manufacturers, so can't really give an opinion on that. But in terms of techniques:
In general, it seems like connectome work has come a long way in the last decade or so, both in humans and non-humans. Which is great! But even having a full connectome isn't going to tell us everything about a brain--it's an important piece of the puzzle, but far from the whole thing.
FNIRs is great as a lightweight alternative to fMRI or EEG, and has its place in research, but has similar drawbacks to both of them--measures a proxy for brain activity, has movement artifacts, and poor spatial resolution. One nice use I've seen for them is in infants/young children where fMRI and EEG are less practical because the subject is... less cooperative.
All of these are great and show progress on our measures of neural activity, but seem like incremental advances rather than the breakthrough going to let us crack the thing wide open IMO
A sober caution. Science is hard and this is going to take a while.
I'm curious if there are any promising new technologies on the horizon that might help with the precision, either temporal or spatial.
Bigger, more powerful magnets give better MRI spatial resolution, which has seen some significant advances recently, especially in neuroanatomy (rather than neural activity), e.g. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/breakthrough-brain-imaging
While electrodes might sound crude, there are continual advances with them, allowing arrays with more electrodes capturing more neurons with fewer issues with rejection: https://www.massdevice.com/precision-neuroscience-brain-electrode-record-bci/
In animals, genetic manipulation has opened up a lot of doors, like optogenetics (allowing you to manipulate neural activity with light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics). I haven't kept up with it, but I suspect with advancing genetic tools, more doors will be opened--like perhaps optical imaging in more model organisms, or other totally new tools.
This is fascinating. Thank you!
Great explanations - but please don't call autism a brain disorder. Neurodivergent people have hugely varied skills and abilities.
What language would you prefer? Calling it a disorder isn't inconsistent with the statement that neurodivergent people have hugely varied skills and abilities. The NIH, CDC, and autism advocacy groups like Autism Speaks, all call it a disorder. The term "Autism Spectrum Disorder" is extremely common.
Your comparison with diagnosis of the operation of a digital circuit is interesting but I wonder whether a better analogy would be electron beam testing of semiconductor circuits? See for example
Ihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/sca.4950050103
I have no recent knowledge of this topic but in the case of circuit testing we the investigation would have access to sophisticated modeling of the analogue switching behaviour and large scale behavioural models of the digital operation.
Great article, but discouraging for someone who is interested in pursuing psychology and wants to figure out how her brain works. What is your advice for not getting discouraged enough to give up this inquiry?
The brain is the most important thing to understand that I can imagine. Understanding it is about understanding ourselves, the kinds of creatures we are, and the mechanisms that make us up.
Our picture of the brain is fuzzy, and it takes a lot of work to clarify it. But that doesn't mean we don't already have a rich (fuzzy) picture now that is worth learning about because of how much it tells us about ourselves. We might not understand things at the same level as a computer, but we have an understanding of a lot of the different systems at work.
The difficulty of studying the brain also means there are lots of areas to make original contributions to, if original research is of interest.
Hopefully that's helpful?
Thanks, but I asked for advice in keeping yourself emotionally and mentally balanced when working in a field that is theoretically and practically uncertain.
This might help: I come from the humanities and worked as a translator for a decade, where technology and new developments are, in general, seen as a threat. For me, it was a revelation to see how scientists view uncertainty as potential - not knowing the answers and knowing that there is still a long way to go is exciting. Instead of seeing a threat, they see questions to answer and knowledge to discover. That's something that I've learnt to love too.
But how do we know we are not leading ourselves astray in the process? Do we always have keep vigilance over our cognitive biases that force us to practice intellectual humility? And doesn't science pose more questions than answers anyway?
There are answers and then there are new questions and new answers to find :) I think being wary of unreliable sources is more important than cognitive biases, although it's good to keep both in mind.
Why do think being wary of unreliable sources is more important that being aware of cognitive biases?