Editing Functional neuroimaging (section)

== Critique and careful interpretation ==
Functional neuroimaging studies have to be carefully designed and interpreted with care.
Statistical analysis (often using a technique called [[statistical parametric mapping]]) is often needed so that the different sources of activation within the brain can be distinguished from one another.
This can be particularly challenging when considering processes which are difficult to conceptualise or have no easily definable task associated with them (for example [[belief]] and [[consciousness]]).

Functional neuroimaging of interesting phenomena often gets cited in the press.
In one case a group of prominent functional neuroimaging researchers felt compelled to write a letter to [[New York Times]] in response to an [[op-ed]] article about a study of so-called [[neuropolitics]].<ref>Marco Iacoboni et al. (2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11freedman.html "This Is Your Brain on Politics"]. In: ''The New York Times'' 11 November 2007.</ref> They argued that some of the interpretations of the study were "scientifically unfounded".<ref>[[Chris Frith]] et al. (2007). [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/lweb14brain.html "Politics and the Brain"]. In: The New York Times, 14 November 2007.</ref>

[[Hastings Center|The Hastings Center]] issued a report in March 2014 entitled "Interpreting Neuroimages: An Introduction to the Technology and Its Limits",<ref>Johnston, J., & Parens, E. (2014).[http://www.thehastingscenter.org/publications-resources/special-reports-2/interpreting-neuroimages-an-introduction-to-the-technology-and-its-limits/ "Interpreting Neuroimages: An Introduction to the Technology and Its Limits", The Hastings Center Report, Volume 44, Issue s2, March-April 2014].</ref> with articles by leading neuroscientists and [[Bioethics|bioethicists]]. The report briefly explains neuroimaging technologies and mostly critiques, but also somewhat defends, their current state, import and prospects.