Method Matters: An Empirical Study of Impact in Cognitive Neuroscience

A major thrust of cognitive neuroscience is the elucidation of structure-function relationships in the human brain. Over the last several years, functional neuroimaging has risen in prominence relative to the lesion studies that formed the historical core of work in this field. These two methods have different strengths and weaknesses. Among these is a crucial difference in the nature of evidence each can provide. Lesion studies can provide evidence for necessity claims, whereas functional neuroimaging studies do not. We hypothesized that lesion studies will continue to have greater scientific impact even as the relative proportion of such studies in the cognitive neuroscience literature declines. Using methods drawn from systematic literature review, we identified a set of original cognitive neuroscience articles that employed either functional imaging or lesion techniques, published at one of two time points in the 1990s, and assessed the effect of the method used on each article's impact across the decade. Functional neuro-imaging studies were cited three times more often than lesion studies throughout the time span we examined. This effect was in large part due to differences in the influence of the journals publishing the two methods; functional neuroimaging studies appeared disproportionately more often in higher impact journals. There were also differences in the degree to which articles using one method cited articles using the other method. Functional neuroimaging articles were less likely to include such cross-method citations.

[1]  M. Gardner,et al.  More informative abstracts revisited. , 1990, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[2]  M. Raichle,et al.  The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. , 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Philipp Slusallek,et al.  Introduction to real-time ray tracing , 2005, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[4]  Robert West,et al.  What do citation counts count for in the field of addiction? An empirical evaluation of citation counts and their link with peer ratings of quality. , 2002, Addiction.

[5]  J. Najman,et al.  The validity of publication and citation counts for Sociology and other selected disciplines , 2003 .

[6]  M. Posner,et al.  Localization of cognitive operations in the human brain. , 1988, Science.

[7]  A Dracos,et al.  [Scientific literature: bibliometric and bibliographic indicators as integrative criteria for an objective evaluation of research activity]. , 1995, Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita.

[8]  Richard B. Ivry,et al.  The Human Striatum is Necessary for Responding to Changes in Stimulus Relevance , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Neural modeling and functional brain imaging: an overview , 2000, Neural Networks.

[10]  H. Karnath,et al.  Using human brain lesions to infer function: a relic from a past era in the fMRI age? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[11]  D. Laband,et al.  A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. , 1994, JAMA.

[12]  Warren D Taylor,et al.  Neuroimaging in late-life depression , 2006, International review of psychiatry.

[13]  M. Hallett Human Brain Function , 1998, Trends in Neurosciences.

[14]  M. Farah Neuropsychological inference with an interactive brain: A critique of the "locality" assumption. , 1994 .

[15]  Rebecca Saxe,et al.  Dissociation between emotion and personality judgments: Convergent evidence from functional neuroimaging , 2005, NeuroImage.

[16]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  BMC Medicine BioMed Central , 2003 .

[17]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The Trouble with Cognitive Subtraction , 1996, NeuroImage.

[18]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[19]  Mark D'Esposito,et al.  Neurology of Cognitive and Behavioral Disorders , 2001 .

[20]  Victor M Montori,et al.  Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines , 2002, BMC medical research methodology.

[21]  S. J. Haggbloom,et al.  The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century , 2002 .

[22]  Gereon R. Fink,et al.  Remarks on this special issue , 2003, NeuroImage.

[23]  J. Duncan,et al.  Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands , 2000, Trends in Neurosciences.

[24]  Vijay Kannan,et al.  The Contribution of Neuroimaging to the Study of Language and Aphasia , 2006, Neuropsychology Review.

[25]  D. Cook,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  L. Bérubé,et al.  [Clinical neuropsychology]. , 1982, Nursing Quebec.

[27]  M. Raichle Functional Brain Imaging and Human Brain Function , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Visual agnosia, 2nd ed. , 2004 .

[29]  D. Oakes,et al.  The productivity and impact of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Scholar Program: the apparent positive effect of peer review. , 2001, Blood cells, molecules & diseases.

[30]  R. Wears,et al.  Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. , 2002, JAMA.

[31]  Richard J. Brown Neuropsychology Mental Structure , 1989 .

[32]  G. Mela,et al.  Radiological research in Europe: a bibliometric study , 2003, European Radiology.

[33]  Diana Van Lancker Sidtis,et al.  Does functional neuroimaging solve the questions of neurolinguistics? , 2006, Brain and Language.

[34]  Tim Shallice,et al.  Functional imaging and neuropsychology findings: how can they be linked? , 2003, NeuroImage.