I am not sure if this would really be much of a shock to researchers who have spent time working with fMRI data.
I'm a computer science grad student, but spend at least half of my time taking courses and reading literature from the fields of psychology and neuroscience. Brain imaging studies have become very popular within many subfields of psychology, yet often the published analyses I encounter make inferences which are not necessarily well supported by the data.
It is encouraging that more researchers are making their raw data available. Currently many academics treat fMRI studies as some kind of infallible truth, when in reality it would be wise to give more consideration to the many sources of error that contribute to conclusions reached from imaging data. Hopefully the availability of raw data as a supplement to publications will help us gain more complete understandings.
I'm a computer science grad student, but spend at least half of my time taking courses and reading literature from the fields of psychology and neuroscience. Brain imaging studies have become very popular within many subfields of psychology, yet often the published analyses I encounter make inferences which are not necessarily well supported by the data.
It is encouraging that more researchers are making their raw data available. Currently many academics treat fMRI studies as some kind of infallible truth, when in reality it would be wise to give more consideration to the many sources of error that contribute to conclusions reached from imaging data. Hopefully the availability of raw data as a supplement to publications will help us gain more complete understandings.