Encephalon carnival: Psychology-neuroscience roundup

The Encephalon carnival is back!

Blog carnivals are an effort to streamline the blogosphere's massive resources through timely and topical online magazines. Encephalon is one such rotating carnival, featuring the blog's best neuroscience and psychology writing.

The 83rd edition, published today, is well worth checking out. There’s something for everyone, whether it's Neuroanthropology's look at prodromal psychosis, Dr. Shock's take on what makes a good bodyguard, Charbonnier's musings on confabulation and free will, Neurocritic's report on how Facebook affects the size of your amygdala, or the latest news and views on autism.

Hosting this month's carnival is Dr. Romeo Vitelli at Providentia (“a biased look at psychology in the world”), who is featuring his two-part series on the historical mystery surrounding Friedrich Nietzsche.

The complete edition is HERE.

fMRI controversies: Special journal section

A special section of the Association for Psychological Science's journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science, is dedicated to controversies surrounding functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or fMRI, technology. The articles* are:

• Neuroimaging: Voodoo, New Phrenology, or Scientific Breakthrough? Introduction to Special Section on fMRI by Ed Diener -- In response to the widespread interest following the publication of Vul et al (2009), Perspectives Editor Ed Diener invited researchers to contribute articles for a special section on fMRI, discussing the promises and issues facing neuroimaging.

• Mistreating Psychology in the Decades of the Brain by Gregory A. Miller -- Scientists tend to consider psychology-biology relationships in two distinct ways: by assuming that psychological phenomena can be fully explained in terms of biological events and by treating them as if they exist in separate realms. These approaches hold up scientific progress and have important implications for clinical practice and policy decisions (e.g., allocating research funds).

• Brain Imaging, Cognitive Processes, and Brain Networks by Brian D. Gonsalves and Neal J. Cohen -- The growth of neuroimaging research has led to reflection on what those techniques can actually tell us about cognitive processes. When used in combination with other cognitive neuroscience methods, neuroimaging has promise for making important advancements. For example, neuroimaging studies on memory have raised questions not only about the regions involved with memory but also about component cognitive processes (e.g., the role of different attention subsystems in memory retrieval), and this has resulted in more theorizing about the interactions of memory and attention.

• Mapping Mental Function to Brain Structure: How Can Cognitive Neuroimaging Succeed? by Russell A. Poldrack -- To understand the anatomy of mental functions, researchers may to need to move away from commonly used brain mapping strategies and begin searching for selective associations. This will require more emphasis on the structure of cognitive processes, which may be achieved through development of formal ontologies (e.g., the Cognitive Atlas) that will describe the “parts” and processes of the mind. Using these ontologies in combination with large-scale data mining approaches may more directly relate mental processes and brain function.

• The Appeal of the Brain in the Popular Press by Diane M. Beck -- Why do people like the brain so much? Brain-related articles in the press, especially ones about fMRI research, tend to be very popular with the general public, but many of these articles may result in misinterpretations of the science. Part of the popularity may be attributed to their deceptively simple message: Perform an action and a certain area lights up. In addition, people are more confident in “biological” images than in the behavioral phenomena on which the images are based. In order to maintain trust with the public, scientists have a responsibility to provide the press with descriptions of research and interpretations of results research that are clear, relevant, and scientifically accurate.

• Frontiers in Human Neuroscience: The Golden Triangle and Beyond by Jean Decety and John Cacioppo -- The development of neuroimaging has created an opportunity to address old questions about brain function and behavior in new ways and also to uncover new questions. The knowledge that emerges from neuroimaging studies is more likely to be beneficial when combined with techniques and analyses that break down complex constructs into structures and processes, measures that gauge neural events across different times, and animal studies.

• Bridging Psychological and Biological Science: The Good, Bad, and Ugly by Arthur P. Shimamura -- The advent of functional neuroimaging has brought both praise and criticism to the field of psychological science. Although most studies relying on fMRI are correlative, they do offer some clues about the biology underlying psychological processes. However, it is not sufficient to show which area of the brain is involved in a particular cognitive process; rather theories need to address “how?” questions (e.g., How does the hippocampus contribute to remembering?) in order to best bridge psychological and biological science.

*Note: Click on any of the highlighted author names to send an email to the author, requesting a copy of the article.

Hat tip: Ken Pope

Blogosphere recommendations

Mind Hacks

I have been checking out Mind Hacks since it featured a really nice review of my blog. The blog evolved out of the 2004 book by the same name, in which authors Tom Stafford (a cognitive neuroscientist) and Matt Webb (an engineer and designer) provide 100 exercises that teach readers neuroscience theories through games and tricks.

Among the scientists who contributed "hacks" is Vaughan Bell, who seems largely responsible for keeping the blog alive through his quirky and eclectic posts. Dr. Bell is a psychologist currently working in Medellín, Colombia and also a visiting research fellow in the Department of Psychological Medicine and Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.

Just to give you an idea of some of his near-daily offerings, he recently posted on everything from decorative skull shaping to dream smoking (that's when you dream about cigarettes after you quit smoking) to new research on cave paintings. I particularly enjoyed his link to an amazing Russian website that features historical art by and about the mad. It reminded me of when I was living in Paris at age 10 and was influenced by an exhibit of art by schizophrenics that my mother took me to at the Louvres museum. More somberly, the prolific Bell reported on a new study in the Journal of Adolescent Health finding that it's a myth that teens think they are invincibile; actually, they greatly overestimate their chances of dying soon. I found it interesting, because the behaviors that result from either thinking error could look very similar.

The psychology of the angry American

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, my forensic psychology colleague Paul G. Mattiuzzi in Sacramento has an interesting analysis at his Everyday Psychology blog of the psychology of the pilot who intentionally crashed his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas on February 18.

Dr. Mattiuzzi based his analysis on the diatribes that Joe Stack wrote before taking his last flight. Although Mattiuzzi doesn't specifically reference the so-called Tea Party Movement, his comments on the "lunatic fringe" seem to apply to these disaffected white Americans:

There is in this country today, it seems to me, a gathering storm of mindlessly angry people who are "fed up" for reasons they can barely explain. There are people in the media who are telling them they should be angry, and perhaps more importantly, that they should be afraid….

[These] people have come to identify the government as an enemy of the people. They are grandiose in their belief that they understand it all better than anyone else. They are self-righteous in their indignation and in their resentment. They express a sense of entitlement, arguing that they have a right not just to their own opinions, but also to their own facts. They shout until no one can hear them and then complain that no one is listening. They expect their individual voice to prevail and then complain that they have been denied representation. They do not wish to contribute to the common good, but demand all the benefits they have been promised. Like Stack, they bemoan corporate greed while demanding that greed be unfettered.

Dr. Mattiuzzi hopes that acts like Joe Stack's do not inspire copycats. As he concludes (in my favorite lines from his essay):

Joe Stack wanted us to believe that in his abject failure, he had achieved success. It's as if he listened to only part of what Bob Dylan once sang ("there's no success like failure"), without bothering to stick around and hear the end of the lyric: "and failure's no success at all."

Mind Hacks is HERE. Everyday Psychology is HERE.

Voodoo science update

Remember my post back in March on the critique of "voodoo" brain science? That article has generated a tremendous amount of buzz, both academically and in the popular press. For those of you who want more info, a neuroscientist blogging at Neuroskeptic (motto: "More brains than a zombie's stomach") has an excellent analysis of the article and the resultant controversies, replete with lots of links. The most extensive discussion and collection of links I have found is over at the Amazing World of Psychiatry blog. Happy reading!

New journal issue loaded with hot topics

The current (December) issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law has a slew of interesting articles on sex offender civil commitment, forensic brain imaging, religion and the death penalty, forensic assessment of problematic Internet use, psychotherapy with prisoners, competency case law, school shooter motivations, and other timely topics. Highlights include:

Use of DSM Paraphilia Diagnoses in Sexually Violent Predator Commitment Cases
This is the long-awaited article by DSM-III editors Michael B. First and Robert L. Halon, addressing diagnostic controversies in SVP civil commitment cases.

It is accompanied by two commentaries:

• In Muddy Diagnostic Waters in the SVP Courtroom, forensic psychologist Robert Prentky and colleagues essentially agree with First and Halon’s critique. They state that misuse of the DSM in SVP cases is a serious form of "pretextuality."

• In Inventing Diagnosis for Civil Commitment of Rapists, forensic psychologist and attorney Thomas K. Zander traces the history and ethics implications of using DSM diagnoses that lack reliability or validity in order to civilly confine rapists.

Next comes a similar point-counterpoint series of three articles on functional brain imaging in court:

• Functional MRI Lie Detection: Too Good to be True? by Joseph R. Simpson

• Commentary: Functional MRI Lie Detection by James R. Merikangas

• Commentary: The Future of Forensic Functional Brain Imaging by Daniel D. Langleben and Frank M. Dattilio

The full Table of Contents, with links to full-text pdf files, is here.

More on the McInerney antigay murder case

Defense may use emerging science of adolescent brain development

Greg Herek, a prominent scholar in the field of prejudice studies, wrote a good summary today about the case of 14-year old Brandon McInerney. As I noted yesterday, the 14-year-old will be arraigned Thursday on charges of murdering his gay classmate, 15-year-old Lawrence King.

Herek's post, which you can read at the UC Davis researcher's "Beyond Homophobia" blog, mentions the possibility of a defense based on emerging neuroscience technology, suggesting that the adolescent brain is not fully developed.

McInerney's attorney, Ventura County Public Defender William Quest, has said he will do everything he can to invoke the science of the developing brain at McInerney's trial. Quest maintains that immature brain development might mitigate the intent to kill.

"The crux of homicide is you have this intent to kill. It's thought out and coherent. If there is something that, given your brain development, puts you in a state that is not coherent, it mitigates that intent," he is quoted in the Ventura County Star as saying.

Quest may have a tough time convincing jurors that McInerney did not form the legally required intent to kill, in that the Young Marines member brought a gun to school and shot Lawrence King not once but twice in the head.

If a neuroscience defense emerges as a centerpiece of the nationally publicized case, it will likely draw attention to the current conflict in the field over whether the budding science is well enough established for the courtroom. (For more on that debate, see the Law & Neuroscience Project website and the Law and Ethics of Brain Scanning resources brought to you by the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at the University of Arizona.)

That controversy aside, it will be good news if Quest backs away from his earlier focus on blaming the school for the tragedy. Quest had publicly stated that administrators of the middle school where the killing took place were partly responsible because they allowed the victim to openly display his gender nonconformity.

Tom Kisken of the Ventura County Star has a lengthy summary of the neuroscience debate as it pertains to McInerney's case, available online here. Greg Herek's blog post is here.

Major ruling on forensic neuropsychology

Flexible wins epic
Battle of the Batteries

The Democrats have Obama versus Clinton. American Idol has the battle of the two Davids. But whoever heard of the battle between the fixed and the flexible batteries?

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, for one. And in that more obscure battle in the field of neuropsychology, the court this week handed a resounding victory to the flexible battery. Although I haven't seen anyone dancing in the streets, it's a victory that forensic psychologists and neuropsychologists should be celebrating.

A bit of background: The "fixed" battery approach involves rigid administration of a fixed set of tests. The most popular such batteries are the Halstead-Reitan and the Luria. The flexible or "Boston Process" approach, in contrast, involves administering a core set of tests, supplemented by extra tests chosen on the basis of specific case factors and hypotheses.

When I was a neuropsychology intern, I was trained in the Boston Process Approach. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of neuropsychologists in a recent survey - 94% - said they use some type of flexible battery approach. As the New Hampshire Supreme Court pointed out, that makes it the standard of practice in the field.

The case involves the alleged lead poisoning of Shelby Baxter, now 13, when she was a toddler. The civil case against Ms. Baxter's landlord, whom the Baxters claim knew the apartment was contaminated, was dismissed after the trial judge excluded neuropsychological evidence using the Boston Process approach as not scientific. The case will now go forward.

The plaintiffs' neuropsychologist, Barbara Bruno-Golden, Ed.D, had substantial experience with lead-exposed children, and each individual test in her battery was published, tested, and peer reviewed, as befitting reliable science under the legal standard of Daubert and New Hampshire statutory law.

At a 6-day Daubert evidentiary hearing, the defense called controversial neuropsychologist David Faust, Ph.D., who testified that although Dr. Bruno-Golden's approach was generally accepted in clinical practice, it was not so in a forensic setting. The plaintiff's experts, as well as the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology in an amicus brief, correctly countered that there is no separate standard for forensic practice.

In its exhaustive and thoroughly reasoned opinion, the Supreme Court soundly rejected Faust's reasoning, issuing a monumental blow to the minority of forensic neuropsychologists who staunchly cling to the fixed battery approach.

"Under the defendants' position, no psychologist who uses a flexible battery would qualify as an expert, even though the flexible battery approach is the prevalent and well-accepted methodology for neuropsychology," the court pointed out. "Therefore, the implication … is that no neuropsychologist, or even psychiatrist or psychologist since, in their view, all combinations of tests need to be validated and reliable, could ever assist a trier of fact in a legal case."

The court held that any weaknesses in Bruno-Golden’s methodology - if indeed such existed - were properly handled through cross-examination and counterbalancing evidence in the adversarial trial process.

The case, Baxter v. Temple, is online here. A news article is here. A blog commentary at Traumatic Brain Injury is here.

Photo credit: 02ma (Creative Commons license)