Improving the study of brain-behavior relationships by revisiting basic assumptions
Christiana Westlin, Jordan E. Theriault, Yuta Katsumi, Alfonso Nieto-Castañón, Aaron Kucyi, Sebastian F. Ruf, Sarah M. Brown, Misha Pavel, Deniz Erdoğmuş, Dana H. Brooks, Karen S. Quigley, Susan Whitfield‐Gabrieli, Lisa Feldman Barrett
Abstract
Neuroimaging research has been at the forefront of concerns regarding the failure of experimental findings to replicate. In the study of brain-behavior relationships, past failures to find replicable and robust effects have been attributed to methodological shortcomings. Methodological rigor is important, but there are other overlooked possibilities: most published studies share three foundational assumptions, often implicitly, that may be faulty. In this paper, we consider the empirical evidence from human brain imaging and the study of non-human animals that calls each foundational assumption into question. We then consider the opportunities for a robust science of brain-behavior relationships that await if scientists ground their research efforts in revised assumptions supported by current empirical evidence.