Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Phrenology Essay

After functional magnetic resonance imaging was first introduced, it has been under criticism that it is not hard science. The most common technique, the BOLD (blood oxygen level-dependent) functional magnetic resonance imaging, measures the increase in regional cerebral blood shine in response to increase metabolism, which is to be caused from heightened natural action of neuron firing (Menon & Kim, 1999). more or less neurologists retrieve that this is an substantiative way of measuring brain activity, and is not sufficient to support whatsoever idea. By many scientists functional magnetic resonance imaging is often compared to phrenology, a study that once gained popularity in the 19th century.Phrenology is based on the concept that the brain is the electronic organ of the mind, and that sealed brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules (Fodor, 1983). This is uniform to fmagnetic resonance imaging practitioners attempts to localize brain structure, matchi ng the divided split of the brain with certain functions. Judging whether functional magnetic resonance imaging is a cutting form of phrenology concerns two points functional magnetic resonance imagings similarities to phrenology, and fMRIs signifi put forwardce to be admitted as the new form. This volition also lead to the question of whether fMRI sap is meaningful to be presented as evidence in move.The logic of fMRI is straight-forward. Brain parts that light up to a certain stimulus, is link up to the function provoked by the stimulus. The fMRI machine measures increase in blood flow in brain regions. The regions with increased blood flow appear in brighter colors, in red or yellow (Dobbs, 2005). fMRIs logic of relating higher blood flow and function is similar to that of phrenology, which relates size of lump to function. From this analogy we heap say that fMRI can be considered some form of phrenology. Another reason that fMRI is compared to phrenology is for its limit ations (Menon & Kim, 1999).MRIs problem rise from the fact that it does not show interactions amongst parts. It takes a univariate approach to the brain, implying that only one factor is considered as variable. The online fMRI shows voxels activity as one sum, meaning that it cannot collect comparative or sequential information of brain parts (Dobbs, 2005). Many neurologists believe that brain parts interaction is an important aspect, and fMRIs want of capacity to do so results in criticism. Compared with the old phrenology, fMRI shares the analogous view that brains have localized functions. However, fMRI takes a more scientific approach than the old phrenology.Although it has its limitation in presenting spatial information, it does contribute in relating brains structure and the minds function. Although the old phrenology is labeled pseudoscience and no longish acknowledged in the field of science anymore, it has had its contributions. It sparked the idea that mind can be l ocalized, such as language and memory. In the same setting fMRI can contribute, only much more than the old phrenology. Although fMRIs blood flow measurement and the actual neural activity do not perfectly correspond with each other (Dobbs, 2005), solid correlation can be drawn from the fMRI scanning.As for the employment as court evidence, I see fMRI scan of import as evidence, for fMRI does show some level of correlation of parts of brains and certain activity. fMRI should not be criticized and banned from court hardly because of its possibility of erroneous conclusion (Hughes, 2010). Even witnesses testimonies are bound to be wrong, but their testimonies are accepted as evidence. Thus fMRI should be allowed to be presented as evidence in court. However, the juries should be made sensible that fMRI scan is an arbitrarily interpreted output, and contain risks of erroneous conclusions.I believe fMRI will gain stronger grounds in the court later in the future though, with the a dvance of technology as mentioned above. Some compare neurologists with fMRI to molecular biologists with light microscopes (Jaffe, 2004), for the reason that the capacity of fMRI is not sufficient for neurological study. It must be taken into grade that later light microscopes evolved to electron microscopes, meaning that also fMRI will offer improved spatial and temporal information in the future. Its authority must be acknowledged, and in the meantime there should be efforts to let out complementary analysis methods (Hubbard, 2003).