Group averages obscure how an individual's brain controls behavior: study

The specific counterintuitive result is mentioned toward the end of the article, and I'm having some trouble understanding it:

> when analyzing average trends in groups of children, slower reaction times to the “Go” signal were linked to increased activity in many brain regions, including the default mode network

> However, when an individual had a slower reaction time to the “Go” signal, activity decreased in the default mode network — the opposite of the group-level pattern.

"This approach was also able to identify subgroups of children with different levels of cognitive control and performance monitoring, or the ability to modify one’s strategy after making an error."

This should surprise no one. You took a large population and found subpopulations within it. If you want to look at a population average, then use the population data. If you want to look at kids with specific attention needs (guessing ADHD since medical related) then design a study to select for children fitting that criteria, including subtypes.

This seems like the type of thing that should have had a study about study design done long ago that they could have followed to help them structure their own population selection.

Is this common sense and by definition of what an average is?

[dead]