Slashdot Mirror
Dead Salmon's "Brain Activity" Cautions fMRI Researchers
AthanasiusKircher sends in a Wired writeup on what should surely be a contender in the next Improbable Research competition: wiring a dead salmon into an fMRI machine and showing it pictures of humans designed to evoke various emotions. "When they got around to analyzing the voxel... data, the voxels representing the area where the salmon's tiny brain sat showed evidence of activity. In the fMRI scan, it looked like the dead salmon was actually thinking about the pictures it had been shown. ... The result is completely nuts — but that's actually exactly the point. [Neuroscientist Craig] Bennett... and his adviser, George Wolford, wrote up the work as a warning about the dangers of false positives in fMRI data. They wanted to call attention to ways the field could improve its statistical methods. ... Bennett notes: 'We could set our threshold [of significance] so high that we have no false positives, but we have no legitimate results.... We could also set it so low that we end up getting voxels in the fish's brain. It's the fine line that we walk.'" The research has been turned down by several publications, according to Wired, but a poster is available (PDF).
It proves that an fMRI, like most machines, needs to be carefully operated and the mechanisms understood, as there are risks of false positives for results.
The paper is about intentionally observing a dead creature, and coming across a few false positives and why that happened.
God bless you, Terri Schiavo.
Not sure if this was a troll but I'll bite.
This is not about brain activity post-mortem! This is about the stupidity of some fMRI data. This is about the voodoo correlations that come out of fMRI data in popular research that is peer reviewed. They did this to prove a point, not claim dead fish think. Even if we did, I could use your logic to claim that every time we bury a dead person we are burying them with cognitive abilities -- obviously not true! I thought the summary covered that very well as the paper being titled "Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction."
My work here is dung.
Looks to me like the dark matter syndrome: "Our theories wrong? Our calculations off by an insane amount? Unpossible! That can never be. Nature must be lying!"
I find it amazing that people who haven't even bothered to study the data or the reason for hypotheses like dark matter feel the need to make ass backwards comments about people who've literally dedicated their lives to it. What do you actually know about dark matter and the current state of the evidence? Do you even understand it at a layman's level let alone understand the insanely complex math? Have you heard of the bullet cluster? Do you know about the rotation curve of galaxies? Do you understand anything about the cosmic microwave background and its fluctuations? Do you understand the background theories you're ridiculing? Do you know why General Relativity fits the data we have collected so well? Have you even bothered to find out why scientists believe in these things? Dark matter and dark energy aren't just theories that a bunch of arrogant pricks pulled out of their asses. These are our best attempts to fit multiple kinds of data into a single theory of nature. Your attempt to imply it's just scientists refusing to believe the data is at best childish. At worst you're no better than a flat earther.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"That's precisely what this study is showing: even a dead fish has changing brain-blood oxygenation levels."
No, they're showing that the noise inherent in the scan can be taken for signal if you aren't careful with your stats. The dead fish is NOT exhibiting varying blood oxygenation levels.
Even the worst fMRI experiments that get published use a repetitive design, or equivalent. The simplest setup is to administer a stimulus or have the subject do something then stop, then do it again then stop, then do it again, etc. When you're done, you look for signals that vary in tandem with the stimulus.
A dead fish's brain does NOT have blood oxygenation levels that vary in that way. For the purposes of the experiment they're basically constant. However, if you look at enough different measurements, the noise superimposed on that static signal will correlate with the stimulus.
The fish is just for laughs. They could have easily done the same thing with a jar of agar.
Atlantic salmon is called Salmo salar in biology-speak. It is the model species of the entire order Salmoniformes. Salmon doesn't get any truer than that. Pacific species belong to the genus Oncorhynchus. They are true salmons too. "Trouts" belong to both Oncorhynchus and Salmo (and another 5 genera). Some of these trouts have anadromous forms (that is, go to the seas and return to the rivers to spawn), for instance, the rainbow trout (called steelhead in its anadromous form) is Oncorhynchus mykiss and the brown trout (sea trout) is Salmo trutta.
wrong
The poster highlights a very well-known problem in statistics that folks doing brain research are well aware of and almost always correct for. The issue is that, when you're doing a large number of statistical tests, like you are with brain imaging data, you're likely to get a lot of false positives. You can correct for this by using a very conservative significance threshold (i.e., "p-value"), directly controlling for the proportion of false positives using a statistic called the "false discovery rate," controlling for false positives via monte carlo simulation, etc. etc.
Most neuroscientists who do brain imaging are very familiar with these correction methods, and apply them with great success. If anything, neuroscientists tend to be too concerned with false positives, such that they end up actually missing real activations because they're over-correcting.
So it's actually really unfortunate that this study is getting so much popular media attention, because it's giving people the impression that researchers aren't aware of this problem and/or that that they aren't doing anything about it. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Hey guys - I am the first author of the Salmon poster. If you have any questions that you would like us to answer then post it as a reply below and I will do my best to respond as soon as I can.
You can find some more information on the poster at the following link:
http://prefrontal.org/blog/2009/06/atlantic-salmon-index/
Best ~ Craig Bennett
It detects the oxygenation of blood. The mechanism behind this is a different magnetic moment of oxygenated hemoglobin, oxygenated hemoglobin is diamagnetic vs paramagnetic while deoxygenated. This is called the BOLD effect (Blood Oxygen Level Dependent). The difference in the two conditions magnetic property affects the MRI signal lifetime in the near vicinity. This results in contrast developing between tissues with oxygenated blood vs tissue with deoxygenated blood. The idea behind fMRI is that when you use a certain part of the brain, it requires oxygenated blood, which will lead to contrast. Unfortunately, due to low overall signal strength/contrast-to-noise ratio, the image must be signal averaged. Hence if you were tapping your finger to see which part of your brain "lights up", you would have to repeat this action, and have your MRI scan be synced to your action so that the same part of the brian is being imaged over the same interval each time. It's tricky, but my understanding is that it's quite feasible. There are many other mechanisms for causing localized signal lifetime changes, without having RTFA, I can't be sure what they took under consideration.