Evaluate one technique used to study the brain in relation to behaviour.

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials. 

The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one technique used to study the brain in relation to behaviour. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Brain imaging techniques may include, but are not limited to: CT scans, EEG, fMRI, MRI, PET.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Corkin’s (1997) MRI of patient HM
• Eisenberger et al.’s (2003) study of rejection using an fMRI
• Fisher, Aron and Brown’s (2005) study using fMRI to investigate dopamine and love.
• Harris and Fiske’s (2006) study of response to out-groups using fMRI
• Maguire’s (2000) study of hippocampal neuroplasticity in taxi drivers using MRI
• Raine et al.’s (1997) study of murderers using PET
• Sharot et al.’s (2007) study of flashbulb memories using fMRI.

Evaluation of the selected techniques may include, but is not limited to:

• ecological validity versus internal validity
• generally small sample sizes
• how brain imaging has changed the way we study the brain – e.g. improved ethical standards
• invasive elements of some techniques
• limitations of correlational research
• researcher biases in the interpretation of brain scans

The focus of the response should be on the evaluation of the technique used to study the brain. Although an understanding of how the technique works may be beneficial, it is not required for marks in the top band.

If a candidate evaluates more than one technique, credit should be given only to the first technique evaluated.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

SL:

There were many strong responses to this question where candidates demonstrated solid understanding of a relevant brain imaging technique. The vast majority of candidates used either MRI or fMRI and were able to describe how these scans worked in an impressive level of detail.

Stronger responses described in detail how MRI / fMRI scans use magnetic fields and radio waves to produce detailed images of the brain or how fMRI scans measure changes in blood flow. Many stronger scripts described how MRI / fMRI scans show either the structure and/or functions of the brain. Strong responses also described how the process of voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is used to interpret data. Weaker responses interpreted 'technique to study the brain' as a stand-alone research method, describing the use of experiments or case studies for example.

There were a number of responses that confused MRI and fMRI studies, for example, Maguire and Draganski's studies were used as supporting research when describing fMRI, this resulted in low marks. 

Familiar problems associated with critical thinking persisted and many responses provided generic evaluation statements, demonstrating a poor grasp of this skill.

HL:

There were some strong responses to this question — primarily focused on either the use of an MRI or an fMRI. Some candidates misunderstood that although MRI and fMRI are the same machine, they are still two different techniques that are used in research. In responses with more than one technique, only the first one was assessed.

Strong responses demonstrated understanding of how the technology works and/or how the data is interpreted (for example, pixel counting, voxel-based morphometry (VBM)).

Strong critical thinking addressed concerns about researcher bias, ability to establish causality, levels of internal versus ecological validity, or the role that cost plays on sample sizes. Weaker responses tended to focus on superficial evaluation points regarding metal implants and claustrophobia which were not highly relevant to the research presented.

The command term "evaluate" requires that both strengths and limitations be discussed. Often candidates identified the strengths as "the research demonstrated neuroplasticity." Findings, in and of themselves, are not strengths. In addition, many candidates argued that because a study is a "lab experiment", cause and effect may be determined. In the case of Maguire, this is not correct as the study is quasi-experimental.