Brain scans do not help here
21.02.2026 09:26
👍 68
🔁 7
💬 7
📌 2
Brain scans do not help here
Congrats Cleanthis!!
Congrats!!
Ah, now seeing the binary answer in the manual page..
Thanks for sharing! Do variables have to be binary or categorical? (Also, do you have a recommend background reading?)
Was wonderful to meet your group, thank you for inviting me!
Many thanks to @mattmattoni.bsky.social for presenting his interesting work in persons vs. people neuroscience this afternoon at @unirdg-cinn.bsky.social
Read Matt's wise and varied papers: scholar.google.com/citations?hl...
Psychologists writing the most complex sentences in history is fine, but we draw the line at utilize.
screenshot of article title & author team
New paper & a thread on the results 👇
‘Reward-specific learning parameters change across normative adolescent development and are blunted in youth with high risk for depression’
acamh-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/doi/full/10....
This is an awesome paper
Update: now it feels personal
In the big 2026 can we agree to not require a seperate document for all these items that are already in the manuscript file
Check out this cool new experimental study by Jonas Dora, et al on the effects of negative mood ☹️ and alcohol intoxication 🍺🍸on reinforcement learning!!
@olinotom.bsky.social for your next spooky multivariate class
I was fortunate to write this paper with some of the smartest and most courageous folks in any room:
@lluaces.bsky.social @sheilacrowell.bsky.social @junegruber.bsky.social @tinaboisseau.bsky.social @anthonyperillo.bsky.social @jenperillo.bsky.social @cdelawalla.bsky.social
9/9
Just accepted at Nature Mental Health:
Crises and Opportunities for Psychological Science under Fascism
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nz42x_v3
1/9
🆕 New open neuroimaging dataset released!
I’m happy to share that our Naturalistic Neuroimaging Database (NNDb3T+) is now publicly available! NNDb3T+ captures rich, multimodal brain activity in a naturalistic setting with 40 participants and over 160 hours of scanning!
Why do brain networks vary? Do these differences shape behavior? If every 🧠 is unique, how can we detect common features of brain organization?
@rodbraga.bsky.social and I dig in, in @annualreviews.bsky.social (ahead of print):
go.illinois.edu/Gratton2025-...
#neuroskyence #psychscisky #MedSky
🧵👇
🧵8
We focused on fMRI studies of 🧠 networks… but there’s so much more neat idiographic work being done in other neuroimaging & psychology domains! See @mattmattoni.bsky.social's recent review for more thoughts on uniting these perspectives
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
New work led by @mattmattoni.bsky.social
“Overall, results suggest that BOLD activation to reward tasks, and likely other fMRI tasks, is more appropriate for within-person study than between-person study, highlighting a need for intensive longitudinal neuroimaging designs.”
Big thanks to the team, particularly David’s lab to get this study done with a highly reproducible and open workflow! We hope the dataset is of interest to others and are very excited to see where precision imaging goes next! Data can be found on OpenNeuro: openneuro.org/datasets/ds0...
This work was inspired by an awesome similar study by @johnflournoy.science 2024 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38141745/), obviously the midnight scan club @gordonneuro.bsky.social 2017 (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...) and many other amazing recent studies in precision imaging
Overall, results point toward the reward response being more appropriate for within-person rather than between-person study. This is a notable shift from typical focuses, but we’re excited in that we believe there’s a lot of potential for WP level of analysis
Side note (for this thread), the manuscript also gets into some interesting precision imaging methodological points. Highlights are the benefits of multivariate signatures and higher number of trials for tasks.
More broadly, 10-30% of intraindividual variance in the reward response were explained by fluctuations in mood and alertness.
In our small sample, there isn’t a clean significant effect, but there does seem to be some potential that anticipatory reward responses (but not consummation) increased following the mood induction
Our mood induction paradigm (positive memory reflection) showed small but consistent increases in mood. This is notable particularly in contrast to general decreases in mood and alertness across time (especially in a scanner).
[insert rant about between-person and within-person relationships being different, WP relationships being important but understudied]. Or, see review here: doi.org/10.1016/j.ne...
So, there is converging evidence from many studies that reward responses, like most task based activations, are not fit for trait-like markers or between-person study. All hope isn’t lost, though, what if the reward response instead reflect state-like, within-person variance?
We also used single-trial models to examine internal consistency. With how noisy single trials can be, we were surprised that the split-half reliability wasn’t too bad. It doesn’t seem like low test-retest reliability is just a matter of noise.