Maturing as a science: the New Perspectives in fMRI Research Award.

Abstract

The sharing of raw brain imaging data from published studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) represents a new initiative for the neurosciences—one that, regrettably, has not received widespread enthusiasm from the community. Indeed, many in the field have reacted disapprovingly to the thought of sharing their raw imaging data with others, fearing that the data might be used improperly, that others cannot possibly understand the details of their particular study, or that the discipline of functional neuroimaging is not yet mature enough to archive their data at all. Yet, perhaps the first sign that a scientific discipline is maturing is the willingness of its practitioners to share and archive the data that comprises the scientific body of work in that field. By providing detailed information concerning study demographics, experimental description, and scanning procedures, in addition to the raw image data itself, others should be able to accurately reproduce the reported effects, as well as perform novel analyses, and extend the scope of the original research findings. In this way, new understanding of the fundamental bases of the field might be obtained, leading to creative ideas for new neuroimaging experiments, and thereby allow the field to grow. In July of last year, the fMRI Data Center (fMRIDC), in partnership with the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ( JOCN ), announced The New Perspectives in fMRI Research Award. The fMRIDC effort seeks to advance the understanding of cognitive function as measured using fMRI through the archiving and open sharing of the raw data that form the results published in the peer-reviewed literature. This call-for-papers was developed to encourage researchers to conduct novel analyses that build upon these studies, looking at the data in new and different ways. We offered a cash award, to publish the selected manuscript(s) in JOCN, along with commentaries provided by the original authors of the studies whose data were used in the new investigation(s). We were pleased with the initial letters of intent we received from over 20 researchers around the world interested in being considered for the award. Some months after we first announced the award, manuscripts arrived, were screened, and those selected for further consideration were sent out for special review. As we had anticipated, reviewers felt that several of the manuscripts appeared to suffer from basic conceptual and analytical flaws that took them out of the running. This was not due to the fact that the data were inherited through the fMRIDC and lacked critical detail but due to many of the same technical and interpretational difficulties often uncovered when manuscripts undergo peer review. In the end, a single manuscript stood out and it did so for three primary reasons. Firstly, the subject of the article is that of human consciousness—a lofty topic to be sure. Secondly, the author, Dan Lloyd, hails from a philosophy department (of all places!). Lastly, the unique approach that Dr. Lloyd takes in assessing not one but four different fMRI study data sets addresses the ‘‘temporal flux’’ in the cognitive state that has been previously considered by some fMRI specialists as a confound to be experimentally or mathematically corrected for. Indeed, philosophers have been concerning themselves with questions of the mind and the ability of humans to construct rational thought since the time of Socrates and company—perhaps having much to teach the Johnny-come-lately field of cognitive neuroscience. Additionally, those researchers who generated the original fMRI data that went into this new study (Postle et al., Ishai et al., Hazeltine et al., and Mechelli et al.) have graciously provided their comments on this new analysis. These authors are to be commended for their fair, balanced, and enlightening critiques. The further advancement of the neurosciences depends upon the involvement of many diverse groups of scientists examining the data generated by the field from different points of view. The New Perspectives in fMRI Research Award demonstrates clearly that, through the use of shared primary functional imaging data, useful scientific discourse can take place. This article by Dr. Lloyd and the accompanying commentaries should serve to encourage others to investigate the fMRIDC study archive and bring their own new perspectives to bear with novel analyses of the studies available in this rich neuroimaging resource. And, in so doing, data sharing might enable the field to grow and mature as a science.