Skip to main content Skip to bottom nav
  1. Forum
  2. Community Projects & Events
  3. New York Times: M.R.I.s Are Finding Connections Between Our Brain Activity and Psychology

New York Times: M.R.I.s Are Finding Connections Between Our Brain Activity and Psychology

User Profile: fruityPond7887
fruityPond7887 April 27th, 2022


24mag-studiesshow_01-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp

"How might we leverage knowing that a particular neurological features makes someone more vulnerable to autism or Alzheimer's or more likely to achieve academically?

In March, neuroscientists and psychiatrists from the School of Medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, along with colleagues elsewhere, published a study in the journal Nature that sparked widespread discussion in their fields. Researchers, the study noted, are increasingly using magnetic resonance imaging — which can reveal the brain’s structure and activity — to try to find links between what is seen on an M.R.I., like cortical thickness or patterns of connection, and complicated psychological traits, like cognitive ability or mental-health conditions. In theory, such so-called brain-wide association studies could yield incredibly valuable insights. Knowing that a particular neurological feature makes someone more vulnerable to autism, Alzheimer’s or another disorder, for example, could help predict, prevent or treat that condition. Likewise, if we can link certain features to desirable traits, like academic achievement, it might be possible to take advantage of that knowledge.

The problem, the Nature authors argued, is that neuroscientists often are searching for those associations in groups of study subjects that are too small, leading to results that are statistically “underpowered.” In general, they calculated, thousands of subjects should be included for a brain-wide association study to produce a finding that other studies can replicate. This was unwelcome news to many, in large part because M.R.I. machines are incredibly expensive to use, often at about $1,000 per hour, and funding is limited.

Scientists across disciplines have long known about this dynamic, but the Nature paper was able to pinpoint — at least in the case of brain-wide association studies — how many participants are needed to avoid it. Using M.R.I. data from about 50,000 people, the authors searched for links between brain structure or activity and complex psychological traits in groups with different numbers of subjects. Subjects had to number in the thousands, on average, for studies to be replicated reliably.

But the conclusion of the Nature paper applies only to studies that compare M.R.I.s from multiple people in order to identify differences among them relating to complex mental traits. Neuroimaging studies that show brain changes taking place within individuals, on the other hand, can be dependable even with very few participants. For instance, the first notable paper to demonstrate that most people’s brains work in roughly the same way appeared in Science in 2001 and included only six participants, says Russell A. Poldrack, a professor of psychology at Stanford University. That study’s researchers recorded each subject’s brain activity while viewing pictures of cats, faces, man-made objects and nonsense images. It didn’t matter that each brain was unique — the changes that took place in that brain could be assigned to seeing different types of pictures. The patterns were then tested and found to correctly predict, based on brain activity, what a participant was seeing. Those overall patterns, along with other evidence, Poldrack says, established that “when people engage in particular kinds of mental functions, particular brain areas become engaged.”

This realization that we tend to share brain patterns raises the tantalizing possibility that somewhere in the variations among them lies an explanation for why some people have a particular trait or collection of symptoms that others lack. But it’s extremely difficult to separate meaningful differences from the countless random differences that exist between all brains. One way to try to do so is to compare the M.R.I.s of thousands of people and look for a variation — a certain pattern of neural connectivity, say — that is more common in those with a particular psychological condition. Recent advances in M.R.I. technology, and in the ability to analyze vast amounts of data, have begun to make this sort of effort possible. For example, the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study has enrolled nearly 12,000 children in the United States between the ages of 9 and 10 whose brains will be scanned regularly into young adulthood. The study will also track socioeconomic variables, like parental income, and psychological attributes, like resilience, to see how they intertwine with brain development. “Without a study like this, you could never resolve these questions,” says Jernigan, a director of the study’s coordinating center.

Such comprehensive data sets can enable researchers to interrogate the relationships between many factors at once. But there are other ways to explore the connections between brain features and complex mental functions that don’t require as many subjects. Rather than look for associations across a whole population, you could start out by doing “a very detailed characterization” of the brains of hundreds of people diagnosed with various types of depression, for instance, to build models of what those states look like, says Roberta Diaz Brinton, director of the Center for Innovation in Brain Science at the University of Arizona College of Medicine.

Rosenberg, now a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago, reads the Nature paper not simply as a call for larger sample sizes but as a broader reminder of the need to “systematically follow up on results.” For any finding, she says, scientists should ask: “Is this true in a different group of people? Individuals of a different age? How general is this relationship?” Though she says there is still “significant room for improvement,” Rosenberg is optimistic that the Nature paper is one of many in recent years that push for better practices in brain-imaging research. “The value of replication is increasingly being recognized,” Rosenberg says.

*This article was very interesting for me to read because, as someone who conducted research during college, I understood the message the author was trying to get across. While the research this article speaks about is very important, it explains the importance of having large sample sizes. The research being done was about finding patterns in brains of those with various backgrounds, i.e., autism, anxiety, depression, etc. While it didn't take many participants to realize that we all share similar basic brain function, there are so many different brains out there with so many different experiences. It's important that researchers take the time to really sit down and get a deep exploration and comparison of all those different people. It takes many participants to find those connections in our differing brains.*

How do you feel about the conclusions from this article? Do you agree that many participants should be included in these studies to find reliable information?

#Research #BrainActivity #Neuroscience

Read the full article here!






5
User Profile: AffyAvo
AffyAvo April 27th, 2022

I was able to access the Nature Paper but not the NYT article.

I found this statement odd - "makes someone more vulnerable to autism"

I don't understand what it means, and interestingly the word autism did not appear once in the Nature paper. The paper does mention things like psychopathy, cognitive ability, working memory, anxiety, depression, psychosis, behavioral inhibition, aggression, lack of planning, sensation seeking.

I was a little surprised to see the comment about the cost of running MRI. I have worked with NMR, which is the same general technology as MRI. I haven't worked with MRI myself but I assume the cost is primarily the instrument itself, and the maintenance which needs to be done regardless if it is being used or not ie. you cannot just turn it off. Then there is the staffing aspect of trained individuals to prepare someone to go in to be scanned and actually running the scan. It can be expensive to book time if the machine isn't owned. I know from experience brain MRIs are fairly quick. Not sure about fMRI though, as the point is to see what changes and can vary greatly depending on what is being done. Ie. if showing pictures to someone during the scan is it 2 or 100? I think of it more as an issue with needing to have trained people on limited instruments (so you can't easily have a team doing the same thing on 20 different people all at once). Similar result in the end, but different ways of thinking about 'cost'.

There are also some big advantages to MRI. Unless a contrast agent is being used there is almost no risk to study participants without metal objects, although some people dislike or even have a phobia of being in the instrument. In terms of what is required of participants, it's on the low end in terms of what is needed from the if comparing to other studies that require them to be in the same location. The study that is being done though may need more.

Study design seems to be especially important. I didn't carefully read the whole paper, but what I took away was being specific in terms of part of the brain and the number of variables being examined can reduce the number of participants needed to draw valuable conclusions.



4 replies
User Profile: fruityPond7887
fruityPond7887 OP April 29th, 2022

@AffyAvo

Hi Affy! Thanks for your reply! In terms to the statement about someone being more prone to autism, I believe they were referencing genetics! Some people have different genes that would make them more or less prone to having autism. I also believe that the authors only referred to a bit of the Nature paper for the NYTimes article. I did include all parts of the New York Times article as well. I appreciate you reading and replying!! I agree that the paper largely discusses study design.

3 replies
User Profile: AffyAvo
AffyAvo April 29th, 2022

@fruityPond7887 I think your phrasing of prone is an improvement to vulnerable! They were talking about neurological features if you had copied it completely and in order. That phrasing still seems weird to me as once someone is past a certain young developmental stage (and even from birth, I'm not certain of the 'cutoff'), I don't think anyone has a factor that may develop to autism - it's either they do have it or not. As for being 'vulnerable to autism' - well maybe some community members who identify as autistic or have ASD can given their opinions 😉

User Profile: AffyAvo
AffyAvo April 29th, 2022

@fruityPond7887 I did find the paper really interesting!

There was a lot of different concepts within it so I would really need to read it through carefully to get everything. From what I did get from it with a quick read though it seems to have some good evidence standards.

Coming from the natural sciences it does often seem like psychology has less rigorous standards when it comes to evidence. Some of that is just the nature of the field, where individual's perceptions are often needed to give a measurement for something like emotions. Sometimes though it seems like the field has lower expectations due to a bit of apathy when it comes to good science.

It's good to see some in the field call this out in a practical way.


1 reply
User Profile: fruityPond7887
fruityPond7887 OP April 30th, 2022

@AffyAvo You're so right! Doing studies in psychology is very subjective, while biology, chemistry, etc. is very objective. We can't quantitatively measure psychological studies, so it has no choice but to be less rigorous in terms of standards. I appreciate discussing this with you!

load more
load more
load more
*Support Forum Disclaimer
My communities
Community guidelines
Report an issue
Considering Therapy?
Talk to an expert therapist