The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
but then we wanted to see that plasticity too is this some doing something to the activation of the brain and that's when we brought functional near infrared spectroscopy into the picture because it's cheaper than MRI and it's more portable and it's easier to do it only gives you cortical information
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
is much less expensive the downside is oh excuse me and my understanding is that the spatial resolution isn't quite as high as MRI but the temporal but the temporal resolution is very high which is a huge advantage and then there's this one disadvantage that you can only really image the outer portions of the brain