Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:36:43.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PET: Exploring the Myth and the Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert S. Stufflebeam  and
William Bechtel
Robert S. Stufflebeam
Affiliation:
Washington University
William Bechtel*
Affiliation:
Washington University
*
†Department of Philosophy, 225 Busch Hall, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New research tools such as PET can produce dramatic results. But they can also produce dramatic artifacts. Why is PET to be trusted? We examine both the rationale that justifies interpreting PET as measuring brain activity and the strategies for interpreting PET results functionally. We show that functional ascriptions with PET make important assumptions and depend critically on relating PET results to those secured through other research techniques.

Type
Symposium: Does Functional Neuroimaging Contribute Toward Our Understanding of Cognition?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 64 , Issue S4: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Dec., 1997 , 1997 , pp. S95 - S106
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bechtel, W., and Richardson, R. (1993), Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. D., Romero, R. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., and Farah, M. J. (1994), “Mechanisms of Spatial Attention: The Relation Of Macrostructure To Microstructure In Parietal Neglect”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 6: 377–387.10.1162/jocn.1994.6.4.377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiez, J. A. and Petersen, S. E. (1993), “PET as Part of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding Processes Involved In Reading”, Psychological Science 4: 287–293.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00566.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, C. D., Friston, K. J., Liddle, P. F., and Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1991), “A PET Study of Word Finding”, Neuropsychologia 29: 1137–1148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, J. H., Brust, J. C. M., and Hilal, S. (1991), “Imaging The Living Brain”, in E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz and T. M. Jessell (eds.). Principles of Neural Science, 3rd ed. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, pp. 309–325.Google Scholar
Petersen, S. E., Fox, P. T., Posner, M. I., Mintun, M., and Raichle, M. E. (1989), “Positron Emission Tomographic Studies of the Processing of Single Words”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, S. E. and Fiez, J. A. (1993), “The Processing of Single Words Studied with Positron Emission Tomography”, Annual Review of Neuroscience 16: 509–530.10.1146/annurev.ne.16.030193.002453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posner, M.I. (1982), “Attention as a Cognitive and Neural System”, Psychological Science 3: 11–14.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., Grossenbacher, P. G., and Compton, P. W. (1994), “Visual Attention”, in Farah, M. and Ratcliff, G. (eds.), The Neuropsychology of High-Level Vision: Collected Tutorial Essays. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 217–239.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I. and Raichle, M. E. (1994), Images of Mind. New York: Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
Stufflebeam, R. S. (1996), “Behavior, Biology, and the Brain: Addressing Feminist Worries about Research into Sex Differences”, in May, L., Strikwerda, R., and Hopkins, P. (eds.), Rethinking Masculinity: Philosophical Explorations in Light of Feminism, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 21–41.Google Scholar