Comments on: Magnetoencephalography

By: M.C.

M.C. — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:57:41 +0000

@Gary Ames

I strongly disagree that anything but clinical application is a party trick. Basic science is extremely important for understanding the world around us, which is valuable in itself.

Additional value can typically be derived from basic research because of its usefulness to subsequent clinical research. After all, we must understand how the normal brain works before we can recognize the brain deficits present in abnormal brains.

By: Gary Ames

Gary Ames — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:30:50 +0000

One could say that anything but clinical application is a party trick. I think a most useful outcome from MEG would be to intersect with the EEG biofeedback world which can treat a wide variety of conditions with remarkable success.

MEG is too expensive for neurofeedback, but an EEG biofeedback, or an HEG hemoencephalography system can be just a few thousand dollars. There are many opportunities for MEG to settle some controversies with this community of clinicians and researchers who are, on a daily basis, reducing and even eliminating symptoms of autism, ADHD, migraine, seizures, etc. etc.

By: M.C.

M.C. — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:24:59 +0000

@mt
I actually thought you were claiming that all of neuroimaging is a collection of ‘party tricks’. I don’t think TMS is any more of a ‘party trick’ than the other methods. In fact, it’s somewhat more powerful because it can allow for true causal inferences. Rather than saying brain region A is correlated with behavior X (what neuroimaging does), TMS can be used to say that (in the best case) brain region A is essential for behavior X. This is possible if TMSing brain region A stops or degrades the performance of the behavior. There are several papers showing these kinds of effects.

The main problem I see with TMS now is that it’s not going to just disrupt the region being TMSed. Most researchers using the method seem to ignore the fact that whole networks are going to be stimulated, since any given region in the cortex is connected to others. There is some hope, though. Concurrent neuroimaging may help with the problem, since we could see what’s being stimulated and make our inferences based on that. Alternatively, we could figure out with neuroimaging how regions are connected, then infer that TMSing region A likely also affects connected region D, which may be part of the story in disrupting behavior X.

Ultimately, all methods are ‘party tricks’ if not used correctly. Or, of course, if used to impress others at a party…

By: mt

mt — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:33:46 +0000

You seem to think I was dissing MEG. It was TMS I was calling a party trick, which I was doing facetiously, except of course that TMS really is good for a few stupid tricks that would be a hit at a party (”watch me make Mary kick Joe!”). My premise was that choosing MEG means you won’t be doing TMS, since they’re both magnetic and seemed bound to interfere. Also Massimini et al referred to something like a “magnet-friendly” 60-sensor hi-res EEG helmet for the sleep study in which they’re 3D recording and pinging heads by TMS at the same time. Anyway, I think MEG is plenty cool.

By: M.C.

M.C. — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:13:51 +0000

@mt
Party tricks? Sure, until scientific hypotheses are clearly tested with these methods. The more methods applied to test a hypothesis the more likely it will be shown plausible or disproven (which is, of course, the whole point of science). It looks as though understanding neuronal network dynamics (the area my hypotheses are in) is going to require high temporal and spatial resolution, which will require a few of these ‘party tricks’ to perform convincing experiments.

By: mt

mt — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:33:50 +0000

I’m glad some are keeping a cool head. I suppose it might be nice to do a little TMS too, but them’s just party tricks.