Technologies used to study brain

Many early experiments on the brain involved invasive techniques—for example, removing
(ablation) or scarring (lesioning) brain tissue in animals in order to study subsequent behavioural
changes. Behaviour before and after lesioning was compared. In a classic study, Hetherington
and Ranson (1942) lesioned a part of the brain called the ventromedial hypothalamus (VHM) in
rats, a part of the brain that is believed to control feeding so that when the animal was “full” this
centre would inhibit further food intake. As a result of the lesioning, the rats increased their food
intake dramatically and often doubled their weight. This led researchers to conclude that the
hypothalamus acted as a brake on eating. More recent research has argued that although the
hypothalamus does play a role in the regulation of eating behaviour, its exact role is not yet well
understood.
The use of invasive techniques raise serious ethical concerns and psychologists have to conform
to codes of conduct for the use of non-human animals; for example, the Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct by the American Association of Psychologists. This means
that psychologists who engage in research with animals need to apply to an ethical committee for
permission to carry out their research. If the potential harm to the animal cannot be determined,
permission will only be granted if the research is considered to add to current knowledge and
there are no alternatives.
Modern technology is now extensively used in psychology because it provides an opportunity to
study not only brain structures but also the active brain while avoiding many of the ethical
concerns of animal experimentation. This allows researchers to see localization of function –
that is, the functions of specific parts of the brain and how they relate to behaviour.
One imaging technique is Magnetic Resonance Imaging [MRI]. The MRI gives a three-
dimensional picture of the brain structures. The MRI was used in the case study of HM to
determine the extent of his brain damage. An MRI scanner uses a magnetic field and radio
waves to map the activity of hydrogen molecules, which are present in different brain tissue to
different degrees. The image can either be viewed as a slice of the brain from any angle, or it can
be used to create a three-dimensional image of the brain.
There are several advantages of using an MRI scan. First, the procedure is non-invasive, with
minimal potential harm to the participant. Secondly, the image has high resolution; this
gives researchers a good sense of the actual structure of the brain. However, the MRI only
indicates structure; it does not actually map what is happening in the brain. In addition, MRI
research is correlational in nature, not allowing researchers to establish a clear cause and effect
relationship.
In order to observe the activity of the brain, other technologies are used. Positron Emission
Tomography – commonly known as PET scanning - is used to observe metabolic processes in
the brain by detecting the gamma rays emitted indirectly by a tracer. PET neuroimaging is based
on the assumption that areas of high radioactivity are associated with brain activity. Before a PET
scan begins, a patient is given a safe dose of a radioactive tracer compound introduced into the
body by a modified glucose molecule [FDG]. The injected FDG enters the bloodstream, where it
can travel to the brain. If a particular area of the brain is more active, more glucose will be
needed there. When more glucose is used, the radioactive tracer is detected by the PET
scanner. The scan, which usually takes between 30 minutes and two hours, produces a multi-
coloured image that shows which parts of the brain were the most active. The colour of each dot
shows the intensity of the energy signal.
One of the key advantages of the PET scan is that it allows participants to perform psychological
tasks while the researcher observes brain activity. There are two key limitations of PET
scanning. First, it requires an injection with a small amount of radioactive material.. Although
this will not cause harm to the participant, it is still an invasive practice and raises ethical
concerns. Secondly, PET scanning is quite slow and has relatively poor resolution. So, although
it does indicate where brain activity is taking place, it is not as clear as more modern technology
like the fMRI.
Unlike the MRI, which shows the structure of the brain, an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance
imaging) shows actual brain activity and indicates which areas of the brain are active when
engaged in a behaviour or cognitive process. The fMRI measures changes in blood flow in the
active brain. These scans have a higher resolution than PET scans, and they are easier to carry
out. This is one of the most frequently used technologies in biopsychological research today. It
tracks changes in blood flow and oxygen level as a measurement of neural activity. When a
specific brain area is active, it uses more oxygen and therefore the blood flow increases. This
can be detected by the fMRI scanner.
Unlike PET scanning, fMRIs are non-invasive. There is no radioactive isotope necessary. The
quality of the image is also much better and rather than a static image, the fMRI produces a film
that demonstrates change in the brain over the period of the scan.
For both the MRI and the fMRI, there are certain precautions that must be taken to protect the
safety of the participant. Since the technology works with a powerful magnet, it is important that
objects that contain iron be removed. In rare cases, a participant may have to be removed from a
sample because of a metal implant – for example, certain types of pacemakers or cochlear
implants.
Although psychologists can learn a lot from brain imaging techniques, the technique is not
without limitations.
The fMRI scanner is not a natural environment for cognition. Therefore, research may lack
ecological validity. There is a lot of noise in the tunnel and participants may experience anxiety
due to the claustrophobic nature of the machine. There is a question of artefacts in the imaging
– that is, some of the activity may be related to anxiety or reaction to the machine, rather than the
behaviour that is being studied.
The use of colors may exaggerate the activity of the brain. Much of the activity of the brain is
spontaneous and is not a reaction to stimuli. Therefore, it is difficult to know exactly which areas
of the brain are active in a behaviour.
Brain areas activate for various reasons – just because the amygdala lights up, doesn’t mean
that fear is necessarily part of the response being observed.
Artefacts are something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally
present but occurs as a result of the investigative procedure.
In spite of these limitations, there is agreement among researchers that neuroimaging has the
potential to help us to better understand the role of the brain in human behaviour.

Exam preparation
Thoughout the course you will find several studies that use brain imaging technology. Because
of that, they are not described in this section. In revising for exams, you may want to consider
the following studies.

MRI

 HM: Milner (1966)

 Maguire (2000)
 The Case of Eugene Pauly

fMRI

 Baumgartner et al (2008)
 Harris & Fiske (2006)
 Sharot et al (2007)

Evaluating brain imaging techniques

1. The environment is unnatural and may influence the outcome of the research.

Poldrack (2008) argues that up to 20% of subjects are affected by claustrophobia and refuse to take
part in research in an MRI or fMRI. In addition, obese participants are excluded. This may, in some
cases, lead to sampling bias. In order to make sure that the participant lies still in the MRI, the tasks
which they may be asked to do are very limited and mostly artificial in nature.

2. Colours exaggerate the effects of the brain.

The colors are often misleading, making it look like a specific region of the brain is clearly defined
when in fact the activity of the brain is much more distributed and not as localized as we would like
to believe. In addition, a lot of activity in the brain is spontaneous and not stimulus driven. We often
cannot be sure why there is activity in a part of the brain or what it is doing. Brain areas activate for
many different reasons.

3. Brain images are compilations.

The final image is a statistical compilation of several images taken over the duration of the scan. It is
not an image of the brain at any specific time.

4 Scanning is more ethical and more practical than past data gathering techniques.

In spite of the limitations listed above, brain scanning has been a major help to our understanding of
how the brain works, as well as helping to diagnose people with everything from Alzheimer's to
schizophrenia. Research is much more ethical than the early research as the techniques are non-
invasive. In addition, they are incredibly practical. A team of researchers around the world can easily
discuss an MRI scan by sending it as an email attachment! This allows for researcher triangulation in
the analysis of the data and may lead to a higher validity of the conclusions reached.

Strengths and limitations of MRI and fMRI Scans:

 MRIs are non-invasive, unlike the PET scan.

 Less expensive than PET and better temporal resolution. This means that the image is taken
several times and then made into a composite image. This composite image is often lacking
in precision and clarity, but is better than the PET scan.
 The MRI is a static image that does not demonstrate activity. Research is therefore
correlational. Causation cannot be established.
 Although cheaper and safer than PET scans, the MRIs are still expensive. This means that
sample size for research studies is often small. This makes it difficult to generalize the
findings.
 Researchers can carry out limited experiments in an fMRI which allow for cause and effect
relationships to be established.
 The fMRI is an artificial environment which means that experiments carried out in the fMRI
lack ecological validity. As the MRI is only taking a picture of the static brain, ecological
validity is not a concern.
 Artefacts can affect the "findings" of a brain scan. Artefacts can be activity in the brain as a
result of something else besides what it being investigated - e.g. anxiety about being in the
fMRI. It can also be from the machine itself, see the study by Bennett et al, 2010.
  Allows for researcher triangulation.

When used for research, there is the ethical problem of informed consent. Researchers may find a
tumour or some other abnormality; it would be required for the researcher to inform the
participant about any such findings.