Titre
PET Studies of Phonological Processing: A Critical Reply to Poeppel
Type
lettre à l'éditeur
Institution
Externe
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Demonet, J.F.
Auteure/Auteur
Fiez, J.A.
Auteure/Auteur
Paulesu, E.
Auteure/Auteur
Petersen, S.E.
Auteure/Auteur
Zatorre, R.J.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
ISSN
1090-2155
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
1996
Volume
55
Numéro
3
Première page
352
Dernière page/numéro d’article
379
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: JOURNAL ARTICLE ; JOURNAL ARTICLEPublication Status: ppublish. PDF type: Reply.
Résumé
Poeppel (1996) raises a number of criticisms about the methods and reported results for eight studies of phonological processing from six different neuroimaging laboratories. We would freely admit that valid criticisms of PET methodology can be made and that, like any method, it has limitations; in fact, we and others have engaged in such critical commentary (Steinmetz & Seitz, 1991; Sergent et al., 1992; Demonet, 1995; Fiez et al., 1996a; Zatorre et al., 1996). Poeppel's analysis, though, falls far short of providing new insights into the limitations of PET methodology or the means by which future functional imaging studies could be improved. Many of Poeppel's criticisms derive from a failure to understand some of the fundamental issues which motivate functional imaging studies, including those he reviews. However, we are grateful to our critic inasmuch as he offers us the challenge to clarify our positions on important aspects of our experimental design, analysis, and interpretation. In our discussion of these issues, we begin with a general commentary, followed by specific comments from individual authors.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_399572D2177C
PMID
Date de création
2013-03-24T15:36:24.818Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-20T15:53:18Z