Obviously, everything you think or experience changes your brain in some way.
It's like saying that opening a new browser window changes your screen. Duh! That's the point of a monitor. Its pixels have to change in order for it to work. Change is a necessary part of how any machine works. The only brain that doesn't change in response to stimuli is a dead brain.
(This isn't to say that all changes in the brain are equally mundane. Many changes are interesting and meaningful! But the simple presence of change is a low enough bar as to be meaningless.)
Like cortisol and dopamine or whatever are just chemical representations of feelings, are they not? And large areas of the brain are just a physical representation of the mind, right?
It's like they pretend the brain is just some other organ, like our liver or kneecap, and not the irreducable self.
Maybe that's relatable too
It's misleading.
https://neurosciencenews.com/daily-habit-brain-activty-27811...
Is that sufficient to make any claims about what the brain is actually doing?
So.. we can stop reading here?
HN: N=1. Move along, nothing to see here!
If the results is really interesting and novel then why aren't others racing to replicate it? Because it is not. Yet we're reporting it here with N=1.
I think naysayers are missing the point that increasing statistical power through repeated measures over long periods of time rather than just increasing N is totally valid. This is honestly probably a better approach than running more participants across fewer scans for an initial longitudinal fMRI study (e.g. I think this is more compelling than if a study were to run 10 people with only weekly scans).