One contemporary debate within the field of psychology centers on the role of neuroimaging as evidence in the field. Some scholars believe that identifying brain areas and activities involved in different behaviors is the key to unlocking the mysteries of the mind. Others feel that the value of neuroimaging studies is overblown, and that this methodology is just another tool in the psychologist’s toolbox. Some people also have ethical concerns about some of the uses of this technology. What do you think? Be sure to draw on the resources from this week to support your positions.

To complete this assignment, review the
Discussion Rubric.

Classmate 1 JS

The continuous discussion over neuroimaging’s place in psychology, in my view, illustrates how difficult it is to comprehend how the mind works. Both sides of the debate have reasonable arguments. On the one hand, some academics support the importance of neuroimaging as a potent instrument for resolving the mystic nature of the mind. They contend that we may learn important information about the fundamental neurological processes governing human cognition and behavior by identifying certain brain regions and activities linked to various behaviors. By providing a window into the complex functioning of the brain, neuroimaging methods like fMRI and PET scans have the potential to revolutionize our knowledge of psychological processes.

On the other hand, some people express doubt over the degree to which neuroimaging can provide concrete proof. They contend that, despite neuroimaging’s undeniable value, it should only be seen as a small component of psychological research as a whole (Smith & Button, 2020). Brain scans alone cannot reflect the intricate interaction of cognitive, emotional, environmental, and social aspects.

The situation is further complicated by ethical issues. There are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed about the possible exploitation of neuroimaging data, problems of privacy and informed permission, and the possibility of misunderstanding. The proper and ethical use of neuroimaging technology is essential to maintaining its credibility as a research tool as it grows more sophisticated and widely available.

The conflict between the potential insights provided by new technologies and the need for careful assessment of their limits and ethical consequences is best encapsulated by the controversy around the use of neuroimaging in psychology, in my opinion. In order to effectively capitalize on neuroimaging’s advantages, researchers must strike a balance between appreciating its significant contributions and understanding its position within the larger field of psychological research.

Reference

Smith, E. R., & Button, K. S. (2020). Neuroimaging in psychological science: Principles and practice. Psychological Science, 31(1), 3-14.

Classmate 2 LC

I believe that neuroimaging can be defended by both sides of the argument. Those sides being that neuroimaging is another tool in a psychologist’s toolbox and that it may unlock mysteries of the mind. I believe it depends on how you use it and what you use it for. According to one of the articles, “brain imaging has a massive multiple-testing problem” (Nichols & Poline, 2009). Thus, when one uses brain imaging that must carefully look at the corrected and uncorrected inferences. There were some methods that were created to fix this issue and these methods focus on the FWE (family-wise error rate) and FDR (false discovery rate). Though there may be issues with brain imaging, I believe that psychologists can use this tool for when they need a more in-depth look.

            Brain imaging can be important because if it was not for brain imaging, we would not discover how certain disorders may affect the brain. For example, if we were to look at individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. These individuals have “reduced cortical thickness in regions like the superior frontal gyrus, orbitofrontal cortex, and middle frontal gyrus, along with the insular cortex, precuneus, and triangularis” (Jiang, 2016). Without the technology of brain imaging, we would never have known that there were not only emotional differences but also physical differences in these individuals’ brains. Though I can see why other psychologists may be skeptical towards the idea of “another tool in a toolbox.”

            There are issues with neuroimaging but more and more research is being done on the method. It is still a new concept that must work out its quirks, but everyday progress is made. I also can understand why someone may be skeptical towards something that does not seem like it can be concrete. In the end, if one wants to use it they have the ability, and if one does not want to use it then it is their choice.

Reference:

Jiang, W., Li, G., Liu, H., Shi, F., Wang, T., Shen, C., Lee, S., Hu, D., Wang, W., & Shen, D. 

(2016). Reduced cortical thickness and increased surface area in antisocial personality 

disorder. Neuroscience, 337, 143-152.

Nichols, T. E., & Poline, J.-B. (2009). Commentary on Vul et al’s (2009) “puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition.” 
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 
4(3), 291–293. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01126.x