What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI

By Nikos K. Logothetis. Nature, 2008

3,655 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/945aa9eb1ea80ad8684fbd8eddf174056493162c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

Citations in the corpus

Navigating cognition: Spatial codes for human thinking (2018, neutral): “hemodynamic proxy of population activity (159).”
The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. (2011, methodology): “One obvious shortcoming is that only neuroimaging research is represented in this analysis, and the type of inferences that can be made regarding brain function using these methods is limited in some ways (Logothetis 2008).”
Impacts of technology use on children (2019, background): “…concentration (Glover, 2011[46]). fMRI is a non-invasive way of examining the central nervous system, and can provide researchers and clinicians with high resolution scans and demonstrate networks of engaged brain regions when specific tasks are performed (Glover, 2011[46]; Logothetis, 2008[47]).”
Understanding DCM: Ten simple rules for the clinician (2013, positive): “The acknowledgement that the BOLD signal is not a direct measure of neural activity, although seemingly obvious, is fundamental (Logothetis 2008), and can be confused in reporting results (the same would be true of any other indirect measure of neural activity – PET, SPECT etc.”
Physiologically Inspired Model for the Visual Recognition of Transitive Hand Actions (2013, neutral): “…between neural activity at the single-cell level (spikes and local field potentials) and the BOLD signal measured in fMRI experiments is quite involved and dependent on the specific brain area (for review, see Logothetis, 2002, 2008; Logothetis and Wandell, 2004; Nir et al., 2007; Ekstrom, 2010).”
The cerebellum and cognitive function: 25 years of insight from anatomy and neuroimaging. (2013, background): “The approaches are frustratingly indirect, causing uncertainty about the neuronal origins of the recorded signals (Heeger and Ress, 2002; Logothetis, 2008; Kim and Ogawa, 2012).”
Psychedelics (2016, background): “…of fMRI data is not straightforward, however, because the hemodynamic changes that the imaging signals depend on, such as the BOLD response, are not a direct measure of neuronal activity but arise from the relationship between hemodynamic changes and underlying neuronal activity (Logothetis, 2008).”
Identifying and Quantifying Multisensory Integration: A Tutorial Review (2014, background): “5–3 kHz) believed to largely reflect local spiking activity within a spatial scale of 150–300 lm (Logothetis 2008; Gray et al. 1995; Henze et al. 2000), and a low frequency component (\200 Hz) believed to be derived largely from postsynaptic potential changes surrounding the electrode tip (Logotheti”
Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex (2012, positive): “Although the relationship between neuronal excitation and inhibition and the hemodynamic (or metabolic) response is equivocal and multifaceted (Logothetis, 2008), the activity reductions observed here for expected stimuli likely reflect a reduction of neural activity.”
Biology, Neuroscience, and Entrepreneurship (2014, background): “As Logothetis (2008) explains, “fMRI is not and will never be a mind reader, as some proponents of decoding-based methods suggest, nor is it a worthless and non-informative ‘neophrenology’ that is condemned to fail, as has been occasionally argued” (p. 269).”