neuropsychology
Latest
How AI is advancing Clinical Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroscience
This talk aims to highlight the immense potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in advancing the field of psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Through the integration of machine learning algorithms, big data analytics, and neuroimaging techniques, AI has the potential to revolutionize the way we study human cognition and brain characteristics. In this talk, I will highlight our latest scientific advancements in utilizing AI to gain deeper insights into variations in cognitive performance across the lifespan and along the continuum from healthy to pathological functioning. The presentation will showcase cutting-edge examples of AI-driven applications, such as deep learning for automated scoring of neuropsychological tests, natural language processing to characeterize semantic coherence of patients with psychosis, and other application to diagnose and treat psychiatric and neurological disorders. Furthermore, the talk will address the challenges and ethical considerations associated with using AI in psychological research, such as data privacy, bias, and interpretability. Finally, the talk will discuss future directions and opportunities for further advancements in this dynamic field.
The future of neuropsychology will be open, transdiagnostic, and FAIR - why it matters and how we can get there
Cognitive neuroscience has witnessed great progress since modern neuroimaging embraced an open science framework, with the adoption of shared principles (Wilkinson et al., 2016), standards (Gorgolewski et al., 2016), and ontologies (Poldrack et al., 2011), as well as practices of meta-analysis (Yarkoni et al., 2011; Dockès et al., 2020) and data sharing (Gorgolewski et al., 2015). However, while functional neuroimaging data provide correlational maps between cognitive functions and activated brain regions, its usefulness in determining causal link between specific brain regions and given behaviors or functions is disputed (Weber et al., 2010; Siddiqiet al 2022). On the contrary, neuropsychological data enable causal inference, highlighting critical neural substrates and opening a unique window into the inner workings of the brain (Price, 2018). Unfortunately, the adoption of Open Science practices in clinical settings is hampered by several ethical, technical, economic, and political barriers, and as a result, open platforms enabling access to and sharing clinical (meta)data are scarce (e.g., Larivière et al., 2021). We are working with clinicians, neuroimagers, and software developers to develop an open source platform for the storage, sharing, synthesis and meta-analysis of human clinical data to the service of the clinical and cognitive neuroscience community so that the future of neuropsychology can be transdiagnostic, open, and FAIR. We call it neurocausal (https://neurocausal.github.io).
The problem of power in single-case neuropsychology
Case-control comparisons are a gold standard method for diagnosing and researching neuropsychological deficits and dissociations at the single-case level. These statistical tests, developed by John Crawford and collaborators, provide quantitative criteria for the classical concepts of deficit, dissociation and double-dissociation. Much attention has been given to the control of Type I (false positive) errors for these tests, but far less to the avoidance of Type II (false negative) errors; that is, to statistical power. I will describe the origins and limits of statistical power for case-control comparisons, showing that there are hard upper limits on power, which have important implications for the design and interpretation of single-case studies. My aim is to stimulate discussion of the inferential status of single-case neuropsychological evidence, particularly with respect to contemporary ideals of open science and study preregistration.
neuropsychology coverage
3 items