logoalt Hacker News

SubiculumCodeyesterday at 3:41 PM7 repliesview on HN

I'll get raked for this, but as someone in the field, I can say with high confidence that the majority of comments in this thread are not from imaging experts, and mostly (mis)informed by popular science articles. I do not have the time to properly respond to each issue I see. The literature is out there in any case.


Replies

Aurornisyesterday at 5:05 PM

> I do not have the time to properly respond to each issue I see. The literature is out there in any case.

I think your expertise would be very welcome, but this comment is entirely unhelpful as-is. 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.

You don't have to respond to every comment you see to contribute to the discussion. At minimum, could you provide a hint for some literature you suggest reading?

show 3 replies
physPoptoday at 6:51 PM

agree. especially the comments saying "just address it". Its a lot of technically complicated interactions between the physics, imaging parameters, and processing techniques. Unfortunately the end users (typically neuroscience/psych grad students in labs with minimal oversight) usually run studies that just "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" not realizing that is the antithesis of the scientific method. No one goes in to a resting state study saying "we're going to test if the resting state signal in the <region> is <changed somehow> becuase of <underlying physiology>". They instead measure a bunch of stuff find some regions that pass threshold in a group difference and publish it as "neural correlates of X". Its not science, and its why its not reproducible. People have build whole research programs on noise.

show 1 reply
DANmodeyesterday at 3:47 PM

Seeing HN take on your speciality or topic can be brutal.

Condolences.

show 2 replies
strongpigeonyesterday at 4:40 PM

I’m sure you’re right, but given the spectrum of answers here, it’d be much more useful to point out which ones you think are wrong.

xandriusyesterday at 6:08 PM

There are literally less than 20 top level comments and this one is (at least for me) the 2nd or 3rd.

Instead of a nothingburger, you could have used your academic prowess to break down the top 1/2 misconceptions with expertise.

You might not have time to respond to all the comments but a couple of clarifications could have helped anyone else who doesn't comment without experience.

Just saying that next time you can be the change you want to see in HN instead of wasting text telling us how ignorant we are.

nerdfaceyesterday at 8:09 PM

I'm not a specialist by any means, although I am a patient of an fMRI. One thing I will note is that in the eventual, resultant paperwork from the broad array of tests I had, the fMRI was not noted whatsoever, neither was it discussed with me by any of the numerous neurologists or surgeons involved in my case. I was quite curious as to why it was performed at all, but presumably it was some formality to check a box.

show 1 reply
Der_Einzigetoday at 12:45 AM

This is also true when HN talks about AI/ML :)