NYT Letter to the Editor: The uncut version

The NY Times has now printed our letter to the editor regarding the Lindstrom article.  However, the published version is an edited and shortened version of our original letter, which I am posting here for the record.


Dear Editor,
The Op-Ed “You Love Your iPhone, Literally” by Martin Lindstrom purports to show, using brain imaging, that our attachment to digital devices, reflects not addiction but instead the same kind of emotion that we feel for human loved ones. However, the evidence the author presents does not show this.  The region that he points to as being “associated with feelings of love and compassion” (the insular cortex) is a brain region that is active in as many as one third of all brain imaging studies.  Further, in studies of decision making the insula is more often associated with negative than positive emotions.  The kind of reasoning that Lindstrom uses is well known to be flawed, because there is rarely a one-to-one mapping between any brain region and a single mental state; insula activity could reflect one or more of several psychological processes. This same point was made by some of us regarding a similar Op-Ed piece in 2007.
We are disappointed that the Times has published extravagant claims based on scientific data that have not been subjected to the standard scientific review process, especially considering how often its pages exhort policy makers to pay more attention to peer-reviewed scientific evidence and disregard specious claims.
Sincerely,

Russell Poldrack, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin
Geoffrey K Aguirre, M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania
Adam Aron, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego
Lisa Feldman Barrett, Ph.D., Northeastern University
Mark G. Baxter, Ph.D., Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Susan Bookheimer, Ph.D., University of California at Los Angeles
Colin Camerer, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology
McKell Carter, Ph.D., Duke University
Christopher Chabris, Ph.D., Union College
Molly Crockett, Ph.D., University of Zurich, Switzerland
Nathaniel Daw, Ph.D., New York University
Paul Downing, Ph.D., University of Bangor, Wales, UK
Russell Epstein, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania
Michael Frank, Ph.D., Brown University
Janet Frick, Ph.D., University of Georgia
Paul Glimcher, Ph.D., New York University
Tom Hartley, Ph.D., University of York, UK
Benjamin Hayden, Ph.D., University of Rochester
Hauke R. Heekeren, M.D., Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Simon Hjerrild, M.D., University of Aarhus, Denmark
Scott Huettel, Ph.D., Duke University
Nancy Kanwisher, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Brian Knutson, Ph.D., Stanford University
John Kubie, Ph.D., SUNY Downstate Medical Center
Michael V. Lombardo, Ph.D., University of Cambridge, UK
Ken Norman, Ph.D., Princeton University
Olivier Oullier, Ph.D., Aix-Marseille University, France
Steven Petersen, Ph.D., Washington University
Elizabeth Phelps, Ph.D., New York University
Rajeev Raizada, Ph.D., Cornell University
Antonio Rangel, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology
Peter B. Reiner, Ph.D., University of British Columbia, Canada
Gregory Samanez-Larkin, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University
Geoff Schoenbaum, M.D., Ph.D., University of Maryland
Daphna Shohamy, Ph.D., Columbia University
Jon Simons, Ph.D., University of Cambridge, UK
Peter Sokol-Hessner, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology
David Somers, Ph.D., Boston University
Damian Stanley, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology
John Van Horn, Ph.D., University of California at Los Angeles
Bradley Voytek, Ph.D., University of California, San Francisco
Anthony Wagner, PhD, Stanford University.
Daniel Willingham, Ph.D., University of Virginia
Tal Yarkoni, Ph.D., University of Colorado Boulder
Jeff Zacks, Ph.D., Washington University
Jamil Zaki, Ph.D., Harvard University

Signers of letter to the editor of the New York Times

A letter has been submitted to the editor of the NY Times regarding the outrageous Op-Ed piece by Martin Lindstrom.  (Once it is published I will add a link here.)  Because the NY Times will not allow a long list of signers on a letter, I am attaching here a list of all of the individuals who contributed to and signed the letter.  If you would like to add your name in support of the letter, please do so in the comments section.

Russell Poldrack, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin

Geoffrey K Aguirre, M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania

Adam Aron, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego

Lisa Feldman Barrett, Ph.D., Northeastern University

Mark G. Baxter, Ph.D., Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Susan Bookheimer, Ph.D., University of California at Los Angeles

Colin Camerer, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology

McKell Carter, Ph.D., Duke University

Christopher Chabris, Ph.D., Union College

Molly Crockett, Ph.D., University of Zurich, Switzerland

Nathaniel Daw, Ph.D., New York University

Paul Downing, Ph.D., University of Bangor, Wales, UK

Russell Epstein, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania

Michael Frank, Ph.D., Brown University

Janet Frick, Ph.D., University of Georgia

Paul Glimcher, Ph.D., New York University

Tom Hartley, Ph.D., University of York, UK

Benjamin Hayden, Ph.D., University of Rochester

Hauke R. Heekeren, M.D., Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Simon Hjerrild, M.D., University of Aarhus, Denmark

Scott Huettel, Ph.D., Duke University

Nancy Kanwisher, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Brian Knutson, Ph.D., Stanford University

John Kubie, Ph.D., SUNY Downstate Medical Center

Michael V. Lombardo, Ph.D., University of Cambridge, UK

Ken Norman, Ph.D., Princeton University

Olivier Oullier, Ph.D., Aix-Marseille University, France

Steven Petersen, Ph.D., Washington University

Elizabeth Phelps, Ph.D., New York University

Rajeev Raizada, Ph.D., Cornell University

Antonio Rangel, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology

Peter B. Reiner, Ph.D., University of British Columbia, Canada

Gregory Samanez-Larkin, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University

Geoff Schoenbaum, M.D., Ph.D., University of Maryland

Daphna Shohamy, Ph.D., Columbia University

Jon Simons, Ph.D., University of Cambridge, UK

Peter Sokol-Hessner, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology

David Somers, Ph.D., Boston University

Damian Stanley, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology

John Van Horn, Ph.D., University of California at Los Angeles

Bradley Voytek, Ph.D., University of California, San Francisco

Anthony Wagner, PhD, Stanford University.

Daniel Willingham, Ph.D., University of Virginia

Tal Yarkoni, Ph.D., University of Colorado Boulder

Jeff Zacks, Ph.D., Washington University

Jamil Zaki, Ph.D., Harvard University

NYT Op-Ed + fMRI = complete crap

Many of you may remember the controversy that arose a few years back when the NY Times published an Op-Ed titled "This is your brain on politics" by Marco Iacoboni and colleagues.  This steaming pile of shoddy reverse inferences inspired a group of us to write a letter to the editor, published online.  Well, the NYT editorial page is at it again, this time with a piece by self-proclaimed neuromarketer Martin Lindstrom, titled "You love your iPhone, literally" (h/t Raj Raizada for pointing me to it).  The argument of the article is that rather than our feelings about iphones reflecting something like an addiction driven by dopamine (which I have argued for in the past), our feelings about our digital devices instead reflect true love, based on fMRI:

But most striking of all was the flurry of activation in the insular cortex of the brain, which is associated with feelings of love and compassion. The subjects’ brains responded to the sound of their phones as they would respond to the presence or proximity of a girlfriend, boyfriend or family member.

In short, the subjects didn’t demonstrate the classic brain-based signs of addiction. Instead, they loved their iPhones.

Insular cortex may well be associated with feelings of love and compassion, but this hardly proves that we are in love with our iPhones.  In Tal Yarkoni's recent paper in Nature Methods, we found that the anterior insula was one of the most highly activated part of the brain, showing activation in nearly 1/3 of all imaging studies!  Further, the well-known studies of love by Helen Fisher and colleagues don't even show activation in the insula related to love, but instead in classic reward system areas.  So far as I can tell, this particular reverse inference was simply fabricated from whole cloth.  I would have hoped that the NY Times would have learned its lesson from the last episode.