Linked Life Data

10950914

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10950914

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
2000-10-10
pubmed:abstractText
Functional neuroanatomy of cognitive processes is generally derived by subtraction of a control task from an experimental task. We show that this method is logically untenable and propose to replace it with an adaptation of the specific-effect method and of the additive-factor method. The basic flaw that undermines the subtractive method is the comparison between different tasks. We argue that the specific-effect method should be used when investigating activations produced by different levels of a qualitative variable, whereas the additive-factor method should be used for quantitative variables. The use of these methods allows one to distinguish between parallel and serial stages of processing and between local and distributed processing.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Sep
pubmed:issn
0093-934X
pubmed:author
pubmed:copyrightInfo
Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
74
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
191-212
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2000
pubmed:articleTitle
How to avoid the fallacies of cognitive subtraction in brain imaging.
pubmed:affiliation
Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't