Response to yeo et al.'s critique of behavioral imaging

Ruben C. Gur, Andrew Saykin, Larry R. Muenz, Sushma S. Trivedi, Raquel E. Gur

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Yeo et al.'s criticisms of the behavioral imaging (BI) method (Neuropsychological methods of localizing brain dysfunction: Clinical versus empirical approaches. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. J.-290-303, 1990) are rebutted: (a) Localization of a lesion from neurobehavioral data is unimportant given neuroimaging techniques: We think it remains a major function of neuropsychology. (b) Expert judgments are inappropriate for testing scientific hypotheses and the Bl approach is unempirical: Experts reflect the current theoretical understanding of brain-behavior relationships. Thus, the weights used in BI are hypotheses to be tested empirically, (c) The algorithm may miss small lesions, provides only "rough" measures, and may yield misleading conclusions, as illustrated in a simulation: The BI method is still being developed and improved. We reiterate that it may supplement, but is not a substitute for, professional practice. Yeo et al.'s simulations are not examples since BI produces results consistent with clinical interpretation, (d) The graphical display of BI shows a picture that looks like a CT slice but actually is a two-dimensional projection and does not show subcortical tissue: The display is clearly described in our publications and is similar to many other standard topographic displays such as computed EEG/EP topography. We are developing three-dimensional displays that will include subcortical tissue. Yeo et al.'s proposed alternative approach, which essentially reverses the process, had been discussed and formalized in our (cited) publication. We have explained our reasons for beginning with expert judgments because of the enormous amount of clinical data needed for implementing this alternative. Their specific version ignores remote effects of lesions and does not yield estimates of variability. Once such shortcomings are addressed, such approaches will help refine BI weights.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)304-312
Number of pages9
JournalNeuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology
Volume3
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1990
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neuropsychiatry
Weights and Measures
Neuropsychology
Professional Practice
Brain
Neuroimaging
Publications
Electroencephalography

Keywords

  • Behavior relationships
  • Behavioral imaging
  • Brain
  • Lesions
  • Neuroimaging
  • Neuropsychology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Neurology
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Response to yeo et al.'s critique of behavioral imaging. / Gur, Ruben C.; Saykin, Andrew; Muenz, Larry R.; Trivedi, Sushma S.; Gur, Raquel E.

In: Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1990, p. 304-312.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gur, Ruben C. ; Saykin, Andrew ; Muenz, Larry R. ; Trivedi, Sushma S. ; Gur, Raquel E. / Response to yeo et al.'s critique of behavioral imaging. In: Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology. 1990 ; Vol. 3, No. 4. pp. 304-312.
@article{918bc7af38424bea93e3057fef327b12,
title = "Response to yeo et al.'s critique of behavioral imaging",
abstract = "Yeo et al.'s criticisms of the behavioral imaging (BI) method (Neuropsychological methods of localizing brain dysfunction: Clinical versus empirical approaches. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. J.-290-303, 1990) are rebutted: (a) Localization of a lesion from neurobehavioral data is unimportant given neuroimaging techniques: We think it remains a major function of neuropsychology. (b) Expert judgments are inappropriate for testing scientific hypotheses and the Bl approach is unempirical: Experts reflect the current theoretical understanding of brain-behavior relationships. Thus, the weights used in BI are hypotheses to be tested empirically, (c) The algorithm may miss small lesions, provides only {"}rough{"} measures, and may yield misleading conclusions, as illustrated in a simulation: The BI method is still being developed and improved. We reiterate that it may supplement, but is not a substitute for, professional practice. Yeo et al.'s simulations are not examples since BI produces results consistent with clinical interpretation, (d) The graphical display of BI shows a picture that looks like a CT slice but actually is a two-dimensional projection and does not show subcortical tissue: The display is clearly described in our publications and is similar to many other standard topographic displays such as computed EEG/EP topography. We are developing three-dimensional displays that will include subcortical tissue. Yeo et al.'s proposed alternative approach, which essentially reverses the process, had been discussed and formalized in our (cited) publication. We have explained our reasons for beginning with expert judgments because of the enormous amount of clinical data needed for implementing this alternative. Their specific version ignores remote effects of lesions and does not yield estimates of variability. Once such shortcomings are addressed, such approaches will help refine BI weights.",
keywords = "Behavior relationships, Behavioral imaging, Brain, Lesions, Neuroimaging, Neuropsychology",
author = "Gur, {Ruben C.} and Andrew Saykin and Muenz, {Larry R.} and Trivedi, {Sushma S.} and Gur, {Raquel E.}",
year = "1990",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "304--312",
journal = "Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology",
issn = "1543-3633",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to yeo et al.'s critique of behavioral imaging

AU - Gur, Ruben C.

AU - Saykin, Andrew

AU - Muenz, Larry R.

AU - Trivedi, Sushma S.

AU - Gur, Raquel E.

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - Yeo et al.'s criticisms of the behavioral imaging (BI) method (Neuropsychological methods of localizing brain dysfunction: Clinical versus empirical approaches. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. J.-290-303, 1990) are rebutted: (a) Localization of a lesion from neurobehavioral data is unimportant given neuroimaging techniques: We think it remains a major function of neuropsychology. (b) Expert judgments are inappropriate for testing scientific hypotheses and the Bl approach is unempirical: Experts reflect the current theoretical understanding of brain-behavior relationships. Thus, the weights used in BI are hypotheses to be tested empirically, (c) The algorithm may miss small lesions, provides only "rough" measures, and may yield misleading conclusions, as illustrated in a simulation: The BI method is still being developed and improved. We reiterate that it may supplement, but is not a substitute for, professional practice. Yeo et al.'s simulations are not examples since BI produces results consistent with clinical interpretation, (d) The graphical display of BI shows a picture that looks like a CT slice but actually is a two-dimensional projection and does not show subcortical tissue: The display is clearly described in our publications and is similar to many other standard topographic displays such as computed EEG/EP topography. We are developing three-dimensional displays that will include subcortical tissue. Yeo et al.'s proposed alternative approach, which essentially reverses the process, had been discussed and formalized in our (cited) publication. We have explained our reasons for beginning with expert judgments because of the enormous amount of clinical data needed for implementing this alternative. Their specific version ignores remote effects of lesions and does not yield estimates of variability. Once such shortcomings are addressed, such approaches will help refine BI weights.

AB - Yeo et al.'s criticisms of the behavioral imaging (BI) method (Neuropsychological methods of localizing brain dysfunction: Clinical versus empirical approaches. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. J.-290-303, 1990) are rebutted: (a) Localization of a lesion from neurobehavioral data is unimportant given neuroimaging techniques: We think it remains a major function of neuropsychology. (b) Expert judgments are inappropriate for testing scientific hypotheses and the Bl approach is unempirical: Experts reflect the current theoretical understanding of brain-behavior relationships. Thus, the weights used in BI are hypotheses to be tested empirically, (c) The algorithm may miss small lesions, provides only "rough" measures, and may yield misleading conclusions, as illustrated in a simulation: The BI method is still being developed and improved. We reiterate that it may supplement, but is not a substitute for, professional practice. Yeo et al.'s simulations are not examples since BI produces results consistent with clinical interpretation, (d) The graphical display of BI shows a picture that looks like a CT slice but actually is a two-dimensional projection and does not show subcortical tissue: The display is clearly described in our publications and is similar to many other standard topographic displays such as computed EEG/EP topography. We are developing three-dimensional displays that will include subcortical tissue. Yeo et al.'s proposed alternative approach, which essentially reverses the process, had been discussed and formalized in our (cited) publication. We have explained our reasons for beginning with expert judgments because of the enormous amount of clinical data needed for implementing this alternative. Their specific version ignores remote effects of lesions and does not yield estimates of variability. Once such shortcomings are addressed, such approaches will help refine BI weights.

KW - Behavior relationships

KW - Behavioral imaging

KW - Brain

KW - Lesions

KW - Neuroimaging

KW - Neuropsychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025630590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025630590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0025630590

VL - 3

SP - 304

EP - 312

JO - Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

JF - Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

SN - 1543-3633

IS - 4

ER -