A Perspective on the Potential Role of Neuroscience in the Court

This Article presents some lessons learned while offering expert testimony on neuroscience in courts. As a biomedical investigator participating in cutting-edge research with clinical and mentoring responsibilities, Dr. Ruben Gur, Ph.D., became involved in court proceedings rather late in his career. Based on the success of Dr. Gur and other research investigators of his generation, who developed and validated advanced methods for linking brain structure and function to behavior, neuroscience findings and procedures became relevant to multiple legal issues, especially related to culpability and mitigation. Dr. Gur found himself being asked to opine in cases where he could contribute expertise on neuropsychological testing and structural and functional neuroimaging. Most of his medical-legal consulting experience has been in capital cases because of the elevated legal requirement for thorough mitigation investigations in such cases, and his limited availability due to his busy schedule as a full-time professor and research investigator who runs the Brain and Behavior Lab at the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”). Courtroom testimony, however, has not been a topic of his research and so he has not published extensively on the issues in peer-reviewed literature

Regional differences in the coupling between resting cerebral blood flow and metabolism may indicate action preparedness as a default state.

Although most functional neuroimaging studies examine task effects, interest intensifies in the "default" resting brain. Resting conditions show consistent regional activity, yet oxygen extraction fraction constancy across regions. We compared resting cerebral metabolic rates of glucose (CMRgl) measured with 18F-labeled 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose to cerebral blood flow (CBF) 15O-H2O measures, using the same positron emission tomography scanner in 2 samples (n = 60 and 30) of healthy right-handed adults. Region to whole-brain ratios were calculated for 35 standard regions of interest, and compared between CBF and CMRgl to determine perfusion relative to metabolism. Primary visual and auditory areas showed coupling between CBF and CMRgl, limbic and subcortical regions--basal ganglia, thalamus and posterior fossa structures--were hyperperfused, whereas association cortices were hypoperfused. Hyperperfusion was higher in left than right hemisphere for most cortical and subcallosal limbic regions, but symmetric in cingulate, basal ganglia and somatomotor regions. Hyperperfused regions are perhaps those where activation is anticipated at short notice, whereas downstream cortical modulatory regions have longer "lead times" for deployment. The novel observation of systematic uncoupling of CBF and CMRgl may help elucidate the potential biological significance of the "default" resting state. Whether greater left hemispheric hyperperfusion reflects lateral dominance needs further examination

Faster Family-wise Error Control for Neuroimaging with a Parametric Bootstrap

In neuroimaging, hundreds to hundreds of thousands of tests are performed across a set of brain regions or all locations in an image. Recent studies have shown that the most common family-wise error (FWE) controlling procedures in imaging, which rely on classical mathematical inequalities or Gaussian random field theory, yield FWE rates that are far from the nominal level. Depending on the approach used, the FWER can be exceedingly small or grossly inflated. Given the widespread use of neuroimaging as a tool for understanding neurological and psychiatric disorders, it is imperative that reliable multiple testing procedures are available. To our knowledge, only permutation joint testing procedures have been shown to reliably control the FWER at the nominal level. However, these procedures are computationally intensive due to the increasingly available large sample sizes and dimensionality of the images, and analyses can take days to complete. Here, we develop a parametric bootstrap joint testing procedure. The parametric bootstrap procedure works directly with the test statistics, which leads to much faster estimation of adjusted \emph{p}-values than resampling-based procedures while reliably controlling the FWER in sample sizes available in many neuroimaging studies. We demonstrate that the procedure controls the FWER in finite samples using simulations, and present region- and voxel-wise analyses to test for sex differences in developmental trajectories of cerebral blood flow

Striatal intrinsic reinforcement signals during recognition memory: relationship to response bias and dysregulation in schizophrenia

Ventral striatum (VS) is a critical brain region for reinforcement learning and motivation, and VS hypofunction is implicated in psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia. Providing rewards or performance feedback has been shown to activate VS. Intrinsically motivated subjects performing challenging cognitive tasks are likely to engage reinforcement circuitry even in the absence of external feedback or incentives. However, such intrinsic reinforcement responses have received little attention, have not been examined in relation to behavioral performance, and have not been evaluated for impairment in neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. Here we used fMRI to examine a challenging “old” vs. “new” visual recognition task in healthy subjects and patients with schizophrenia. Targets were unique fractal stimuli previously presented as salient distractors in a visual oddball task, producing incidental memory encoding. Based on the prediction error theory of reinforcement learning, we hypothesized that correct target recognition would activate VS in controls, and that this activation would be greater in subjects with lower expectation of responding correctly as indexed by a more conservative response bias. We also predicted these effects would be reduced in patients with schizophrenia. Consistent with these predictions, controls activated VS and other reinforcement processing regions during correct recognition, with greater VS activation in those with a more conservative response bias. Patients did not show either effect, with significant group differences suggesting hyporesponsivity in patients to internally generated feedback. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for intrinsic motivation and reward when studying cognitive tasks, and add to growing evidence of reward circuit dysfunction in schizophrenia that may impact cognition and function