fMRI Studies as the new Phrenology?

A NewsFocus in Science last week on the influence of fMRI images in studies-regardless of data, led me to a more in-depth article stressing the limitations of interpreting fMRI data. Russell Poldrack, a brain-imaging researcher from Wash-Univ. St. Louis was interviewed for the article, and he clearly came down on the side that the limitations of fMRI data obscure most interpretations, and compared it to phrenology. I was reluctant to believe it, in this day-and-age? A method that is steeped in confounding variables and current societies hegemony? Come on now, fMRI can't be that bad. After all it's super expensive, technological, and fancy!

Until I read from the second article:

The general public may be easily seduced by pretty images generated by fMRI (see sidebar), but even neuroscientists sometimes seem to fall under the spell and overlook the method's limitations. One constraint is the narrow sliver of the human experience that can be captured when a person has to keep his or her head still for long periods inside an fMRI scanner. Another is the resolution. Using fMRI to spy on neurons is something like using Cold War-era satellites to spy on people: Only large-scale activity is visible. With standard fMRI equipment, the smallest cube of brain tissue that can be imaged is generally a few millimeters on a side. Each such "voxel" (a mashup of volume and pixel) contains millions of neurons. And although neurons can fire hundreds of impulses per second, the fMRI signal--which indicates an increase in oxygenated blood bringing energy to active neurons--develops sluggishly, over several seconds.

Holy crap. That's a lot of variation just waiting to happen. Who knows whether there are different patterns of neurons that can be laid down, how they are laid down (genetic, epigenetic, or part of nurturing, part of the individual's personality, etc).

I am also reminded of something my high school physics professor said. Granted this was 8-9 years ago, but basically much of our understanding of the human brain is based upon something being broken in the brain and seeing what goes wrong. He likened it to having a TV, but not knowing how the parts work. So you go in and break something, and then see what goes wrong. His point was that a lot of things can go wrong and give the same output, but they all have entirely different functions and parts!!

My point, therefore, is that while investigating it is teh awesome, we've still got a far way to go. And no amount of pretty pictures will get us there without more resolution and an understanding of what that resolution means.