You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
, , , , & (2007). Comment on “Wandering minds: The default network and stimulus-independent thought.” Science, 317: 43 [author reply, 43].
, , , , , , et al. (2007). Resting-state functional connectivity in major depression: Abnormally increased contributions from subgenual cingulate cortex and thalamus. Biological Psychiatry, 62: 429-437.
, , , , , & (2007). Wandering minds: The default network and stimulus-independent thought. Science, 315: 393-395.
, & (2007). Does the brain have a baseline? Why we should be resisting a rest. NeuroImage, 37: 1073-1082.
, & (2007). A default mode of brain function: A brief history of an evolving idea. NeuroImage, 37: 1083-1090 [discussion, 1097-1089].
In the last issue we reported on an fMRI finding regarding synesthesia that inadvertently had implications for that engine of psychoanalysis, free association. However, this may have had an inadvertent effect of its own: to give readers the impression that cognitive neuroscience is only inadvertently interested in free association. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a field as given to the obsessive poring over statistical data by lone scientists in dimly lit and rather chilly basements (where MRI contraptions are typically housed) can be said to be periodically swept by crazes, then let it be said: functional neuroimaging is in the midst of a free-association craze. At every conference, and in every journal, articles from around the globe chatter on about the free-association patterns of subjects. To be sure, this is done without reference to psychoanalysis, and it is not called free association. Rather, it has been given the rather more prosaic name of “stimulus-independent thought,” or, in even less gu