Content uploaded by Jane Prophet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jane Prophet on Nov 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
(Projection) mapping the brain: a critical cartographic approach to the
artist’s use of fMRI to study the contemplation of death.
Jane Prophet
School of Creative Media, City University, Hong Kong
jprophet@cityu.edu.hk
Abstract
This paper discusses the author’s artwork, Neuro Memento Mori,
a self-portrait comprising digital animations and live action video
projection-mapped onto a 3D print. The life-sized sculpture of the
head and neck, dissected to reveal the artist’s brain, was produced
from MRI data gathered as the artist viewed memento mori
paintings and meditated on death. The production of the artwork,
made with neuroscientists, explores the relationship between the
so-called frontier of neuroscience, data and the map. The use of
computation to produce neuroimages, 3D prints and projected
video is discussed from the perspective of critical cartography.
Keywords: 3D print, MRI, projection mapping, critical
cartography
Introduction
Neuro Memento Mori is inspired by an object in the Wellcome
Trust Permanent Collection, “Wax model of a Female head
depicting life and death” (Unknown 1701-1800). It shows a
woman’s bisected head, the left half apparently a detailed portrait
of a living woman, open-eyed, with painted lips and blond hair
arranged in ringlets. Her left hand frames her face while the right
half of her head is shown in post mortem decay. Resting on her
skeletonised right hand, her skull crawls with insects, maggots
and worms. A snake emerges from her empty eye socket. As we
look at memento mori artworks such as this compelling object, I
questioned whether we ‘remember, we must die’? What parts of
our brain are active when we look at these artworks, and, when
we contemplate death by meditation, without looking at memento
mori art?
The project discussed here has been made in collaboration with
neuroscientists Zoran Josipovic from NYU who has been
conducting experiments into non-dual awareness (Josipovic 2010;
Josipovic et al. 2011), anthropologist turned neuroscientist,
Andreas Roepstorff, director of the Interacting Minds Lab at
Aarhus University, whose commitment to working collaboratively
with people from many fields is also the subject of some of his
research (Bahrami et al. 2010) and psychologist turned
neuroscientist, Joshua Skewes, also from Aarhus University, who,
with Roepstorff and others, has opened up the black-box of
“critique” within critical neuroscience (Fitzgerald et al. 2014).
Together we designed experiments that included me looking at
representations of memento mori while in a Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI) scanner to record my brain activity via functional
Figure 1: Wax model of a Female head depicting life and death
(Unknown 1701-1800. Image courtesy Wellcome Trust.
MRI (fMRI). In a second experiment, with tutoring and
instruction from Josipovic, I learned to meditate, to contemplate
death, and repeated that meditation in the scanner. Neuroimages
from these experiments and structural MRIs produced when I was
not doing any particular task were processed to produce datasets
of my brain in order to make a 3D printed sculptural object. The
form of the resulting, life-sized portrait sculpture refers to the
Wellcome Trust object, shown in Figure 1. 3D scans of the artist’s
head were combined into one model that was dissected, then
recombined with a 3D skull and a brain model made from the
aforementioned MRI scans. Video and computer animations are
then projection-mapped onto the sculpture to create a
contemporary memento mori. These included animations derived
from the fMRI data showing brain activity whilst looking at
memento mori images. In creating this artwork, the intention was
not to produce a Turing Test-related artwork that interacts with
the viewer, nor to make robotic artwork (Kroos et al. 2012) but to
use neuroscience techniques to make a contemporary memento
mori, an object that brings together a sense of the living and the
dead.
Background
As new neuroscientific instruments such as MRI and EEG have
made it possible to safely image living human brains, there has
been a concurrent significant increase in data from neuroscientific
research, in particular neuroimaging, and a proliferation of the use
of neuroimages in the popular press. Scholars of rhetoric have
problematised the ‘seductive allure’ of both neuroscientific
explanations (Weisberg et al. 2008) and of the neuroscientific
Figure 2: Neuro Memento Mori: video projection mapped onto 3D print.
Left to right: Procedural animations wireframe, cracked stone; live action video; artist faces 3D print.
images (Gruber et al. 2011) that are often used in conjunction
with such explanations.Against this background, a better
understanding of neuroimages, which are referred to repeatedly in
the debates and practices of neuroscience, became important for
the realisation of the artwork as neuroimages are central to the
way the work is produced.
Pioneers and map-makers: towards a critical
cartography of brain maps
Neuroscientific research is one of a series of scientific endeavors,
including stem cell research and space exploration, that have been
described as ‘pioneering’. Scholars of rhetoric have argued that
the use of pioneer metaphors is key to the funding of this
scientific research (Ceccarelli 2013) and have drawn attention to
the relationship between the popular interest in contemporary
neuroscience and the excitement and power associated with any
research that is marketed by nation states as ‘pioneering’ (Prophet
In Press). The use of terms like ‘conquest’ and ‘land grab’ in
discussions of so-called pioneering science points to the
relationship between the pioneer, the frontier and the map.
Historically, geographic-pioneers needed cartographers in order to
map out, and lay claim to, newly discovered territories, to define
boundaries, to demarcate, divide and classify. This mapping
rhetoric is played out in the use of metaphor in pioneering
neuroscience where neuroimaging is an essential part of making
what is termed ‘brain-maps’ and related computational ‘brain
atlases’.
Critical mapping starts by questioning “a scientific epistemology
of the map as an objective form of knowledge […] to begin from
the premise that cartography is seldom what cartographers say it
is.” (Harley 1989). I will not revisit the well-known arguments
against the ‘God’s eye view’ and the impossibility for truly
objective forms of knowledge. However, in detailed academic
discussions about Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and
3D mapping, attention has been drawn to the fact that “uncertainty
about 3D data (as relief or subsoil data) is greater than about 2D
data” (de Cambray 1993). This further undermines our sense that
there is an objective form of the earth that is fixed, proposing that
the earth’s perceived formal stability is relative, as its three-
dimensional structure constantly alters as a result of changes that
might only visible at specific scales, or made visible and sensed
via instruments. Maps and atlases of the brain are further
indexically removed from that which they seek to define. If, as
critical cartographers show us, mapping the relatively fixed
structure of the earth is problematic, then developing a brain atlas
is even more fraught with problems. Firstly, there are as many
brains as people, secondly, there is no single representation of the
brain and, finally, there is no easy way to create an average brain.
Neuroimaging experts (Thompson et al. 2000) have noted the
“Striking variations in brain structure, especially in the gyral
patterns of the human cortex, [that] present fundamental
challenges in human brain mapping.” Because of this variation
some brain maps and atlases are created using population-based
averaging that takes anatomical data from a large number of
subjects.
The historian J. B. Harley argues for a redefinition of geographic
maps as representations of power (Harley 1988) and with other
scholars from the field of ‘critical cartography’ suggests that
critical mapping “calls things into question” (Crampton 2011).
Insights from scholars of pioneer rhetoric also call things into
question, suggesting that it is fruitful to pay attention to the
knowledge and power at play in neuroscientific mapping
processes and to position these processes as political. A new
materialist view of frontier metaphors sees them as interwoven
and entangled with basic scientific research, and a new materialist
intra-active understanding of entanglement would claim that
neuroscience cannot be adequately dealt with other than as co-
constituted with these metaphors of the frontier. Sceptics of both
geographic and brain mapping are asking, “[w]hat are the
underpinning assumptions that help to govern knowledge? That is,
what rationalities are in play? […] because these rationalities
shape and form the subject of the map, that is, how the map helps
oppress, subjugate, or subjectify individuals and populations
(Wood and Krygier 2009).” In this spirit, the academic
psychologist and feminist critic of the neurosciences, Cordelia
Fine, questions the creation of normative and potentially
oppressive models of brain activity (Fine 2010). Fine’s recent re-
evaluation of fMRI investigations of sex differences, and her
systematic examination of citation practices, support claims of
neurosexism “that enable the proliferation of untested, stereotype-
consistent functional interpretations [of MRI]” (Fine 2013).
Despite using the examples above, a critical cartographic
questioning of brain maps is not undertaken here as part of any
project to denigrate such mapping processes, but rather to draw
attention to how relational and entangled the mapping processes
are, in order to be better able to articulate the contingency of such
maps. The critical cartography theorist Jeremy W. Crampton
asserts that “[a] critique is not a project of finding fault, but an
examination of the assumptions of a field of knowledge. Its
purpose is to understand and suggest alternatives to the categories
of knowledge that we use. These categories (i.e., assumptions and
familiar notions) shape knowledge even as they enable it.”
(Crampton 2011). A critical cartographic approach to brain-
mapping enables a better understanding of the relationship
between knowledge and power in the production, interpretation
and dissemination of neuroimages and their amalgamation into
brain maps and brain atlases. The aim is to better understand the
way that brain mapping shapes our knowledge of the brain, how
understandings of brain function emerge through the
entanglement of MRI images and cartography.
Using examples of the shift from techniques such as handlettering
through to software, Crampton notes that it not the changing
technologies that cause discomfort to geographers. Rather it is
that with them has come the need for ever more specialised skills
that have in turn been used to argue for cartography to be moved
from within geography departments, with their critical theoretical
framework, to independent departments that are supposedly a-
political and internalist. With this post-war shift, he asks us to
consider, “What kind of concepts and theories were excluded?”
(Crampton et al. 2006). The idea that any map can be a-political
and offer a ‘view from nowhere’ is clearly at odds with social
constructivist arguments about scientific knowledge.
Cartographers like Harley “sought to situate maps as social
documents that needed to be understood in their historical
contexts. Harley went on to argue that mapmakers were ethically
responsible for the effects of these maps (Harley 1990a). In this
way he could explain the dominance of seemingly neutral
scientific mapping as in fact a highly partisan intervention, often
for state interests” (Crampton et al. 2006). Taken to its extreme,
social constructivism sees science only as rhetoric. While the
scholarship of rhetoric and social constructivism both offer useful
insights into brain mapping, Donna Haraway points to the
problems of seeing science as “a series of efforts to persuade
relevant social actors that one’s manufactured knowledge is a
route to a desired form of very objective power” (Haraway 1988).
Truth, uncertainty and embodiment
Feminist technoscience suggests we view objects of knowledge
(like our brains) not as passive and inert things to be subjected to
a God’s eye view, but rather as active agents in the production of
knowledge that emerges through intra-actions with human and
nonhuman agents and their environment. In keeping with this,
Haraway proposes that maps are “embodiments of multifaceted
historical practice [… that] constitute spatiotemporal worlds […]
maps are models of worlds crafted through and for specific
practices of intervening and particular ways of life”. These maps
become fetishes only when seen as non-tropic and metaphor-free
(Haraway 1997). Haraway calls for what she terms “an embodied
objectivity”. Critical cartographers, like Amy D. Propen have
taken up Haraway’s project of moving beyond positivist critiques,
claiming there “appears to be a shift in how we have come to
conceptualise visualization practices - a shift that has allowed us
to arrive at a point where we might utilize the “remote viewing
platforms” once critiqued by Gregory and Haraway for their lack
of accountability, for purposes that ostensibly work toward the
creation of more sustainable environments by invoking specific
local or cultural contexts.” (Propen 2011) Propen goes on to
suggest that we engage with a map “as both socially constructed
and as purporting to represent a “correct” model of the physical
world by understanding cartographic practice as embodied
knowledge.” This is especially relevant when engaging in neuro
cartography, as this practice – the production of neuroimages -
depends on living, embodied, brains. However, the body and brain
need to remain very still for the 5-10 minutes that a functional
MRI scan takes to complete. This need for stillness creates a self-
consciousness that accentuates ones’s sense of being embodied, as
one tries to control (and becomes hyper aware of) what are
usually unconscious and small bodily movements associated with
breathing or swallowing. To move while being scanned adds
noise to the data and therefore the most scientifically useful MRI
image emerges through intra-actions that partially erase the trace
Figure 3: Neuro Memento Mori: fMRI images projection-mapped
onto 3D printed head.
of the embodied human via post-scan automatic data manipulation.
Ironically, given the experiments we performed, I needed to still
my body, to ‘play dead’ in order to prevent the micro movements
“due to swallowing, fidgeting, overt speech, or transmitted motion
as a result of finger pressing on a keypad [… which] are a major
cause of inconclusive or uninterpretable fMRI results in the
clinical setting”. (Desmond et al. 2002).
Different perspectives on maps
After hundreds of years during which powerful elites controlled
cartography, geographical mapping has also recently undergone a
rapid and significant shift. The development of affordable GPS
tools and applications such as Google Earth has made it relatively
easy to access, collect, display and share spatial data. Processes
that have historically been controlled by government and
academic experts have become available to large numbers of
people with a wide range of views and goals. “Cartography’s
latest “technological transition” (Monmonier 1985; Perkins 2003)
is not only a technological question but a mixture of “open source”
collaborative tools, mobile mapping applications, and the
geospatial web.” (Crampton 2006) The quantity of geographical
data and the way it is made easily accessible via Google maps is
informing the development of brain atlases, as evidenced by a
team developing an atlas of the rodent brain using a spatial
framework that integrates neuroscience data with an associated
Digital Atlasing Infrastructure (DAI) which is a Swedish-based
online portal. During the discussion of their prototype
implementation of this infrastructure they state, “Tools like
Google Maps are appealing because they serve as gateways to
enormous amounts of spatially-registered information. This type
of functionality, if available in the realm of neuroscience, would
appeal to researchers, as everything is tied to “where in the brain”
and relating different data by brain location would greatly
facilitate our ability to do rigorous, and unique quantitative
analyses.” (Zaslavsky et al. 2014)
In their discussion of the application of augmented reality for
environmental geoscience, Westhead et al highlight not access to
big data, but rather the significance of mobile technologies’
enabling of “two-way sharing of information, through twinned
display of digital maps and live ‘crowdsourced’ collection of
point observations.” (Westhead et al. 2013) Westhead is alluding
to the fact that maps are “no longer imparted to us by a trained
cadre of experts, but along with most other information we create
them as needed ourselves” (Crampton et al. 2006) We cannot say
the same, yet, for so-called maps of the brain which are in the
early stages of production. However, neuro cartography is already
open to the expert crowd. Arguably, a shift in control away from
very a small elite is underway, prompted by the developers of
brain atlases who want to harness the labour of the expert crowd,
to create cartographic tools that enable those users to add data in
order to more widely disseminate research and support scientific
research. For example, the development of rodent brain atlases,
initially based on paper atlases (Hof et al, 2005), have been re-
organized using digital data to produce 3D atlases that are
available on the desktop and online (Zaslavsky et al. 2014). The
technical challenge remains to agree protocols for the
representation of brain data so that independently-produced and
individually coherent datasets can be merged and new data
marked up and added by a wider range of brain mappers. The DAI
has brought together people from many disciplines to create a
kind of leap-frogging technology that will jump over some of the
development stages that geographic atlases went through, much in
the same way that some countries telephone networks have leapt
over the landline phase and jumped to widespread mobile phone
use.
Most of these existing brain atlases still depend on expert brain
mappers to use MRI, fMRI and other expensive and potentially
dangerous imaging apparatuses. Whilst they are an elite, they are
working at a time when neuroimaging technology is in a state of
transition with the potential to become available to non-expert
brain mappers. Much as the development of GPS had an impact
on non-expert geographical mapping, so as EEG becomes more
widely available to non-experts, including artists, 3D brain data
can be gathered relatively safely and more affordably.
Artists’ maps
In geographical mapping, “the infusion of [geo]mapping
technology in the late 1980s […] set the stage for an explosion in
“locative art” and psychogeographical mapping. […] These map
events question the commensurability of Euclidean space, a basic
assumption of much GIS.” (Crampton et al. 2006). Euclidean
space is combined with time in the production of fMRI and EEG
to produce what has been termed ‘multidimensional data’
(Baumgartner 2001) a spatiotemporal dynamic image of brain
activity. Artists have a history of bringing together data relating to
space and time to create maps or scores of performances. Yolande
Harris describes her Score Spaces and their scores not as
notational but rather as “contextual and communicative” (Harris
2014) and the performance artist Alessandro Carboni has referred
to critical cartography in the development of his mapping EM
toolkit for performers that enables actions based on walking
experiences to be mapped and repeated (Carboni 2014) in what
theorists like Amy D. Propen might describe as “embodied
cartographic knowledge” (Propen 2011).
Despite the difficulties of accessing MRI machines, a number of
artists have been working collaboratively with neuroscientists.
This is largely separate to research in the field of neuroaesthetics
that uses neuroimaging to study the human brain as subjects
experience art that seeks to answer questions such as, “What are
the neural underpinnings of aesthetically moving experience?”
(Vessel et al. 2012). In Neuro Memento Mori’s experiment
designs there are elements of neuroaesthetic research, in particular
those experiments where we neuroimage the brain while the artist
looks at memento mori artworks. However, this is only one aspect
of the project, and is coupled with our second fMRI experiment
that documents contemplation. Both fMRI experiments are
inseparable from wider material-discursive practice, which is
alluded to in the final sculptures that, for example, reference the
computational structures of the 3D images by using wireframe
rendering. The first exhibition of Neuro Memento Mori is in the
Moesgaard Museum of Anthropology in Denmark, the procedural
animations of cracking earth projected onto the model allude to
anthropological skulls from death rituals that are currently
displayed in the ethnographic display there. Lastly, the projection-
mapped live video of the artist’s face, eyes blinking, then closed
as if in meditation, or drifting towards death, references the
Wellcome Trust vanitas piece. Therefore the resulting works of
art might better be described as ‘neurocultural products’.
Neuroscientist, Giovanni Frazzetto, and artist, Suzanne Anker,
describe such products as “metaphors to describe and interpret
neuroscience knowledge embedded in social values and
competing cross-cultural norms within divergent societies. […]
[It] does not seek to understand art neuroscientifically.” (Frazzetto
and Anker 2009) Similarly, the project discussed here is not
focused on developing an understanding of memento mori art
neuroscientifcally. Rather it explores the phenomena of
contemplating and producing memento mori objects using
neuroscience that draw attention to “individuality and history,
which cannot be reduced to a single organ” (Frazzetto and Anker
2009, 816).
While MRI remains out of the reach of most non-scientists, EEG
is being used more widely. Though EEG is in the early stages of
adoption by non-experts, a new open source Brain Computer
Interface (BCI), OpenBCI has been developed recently. The artist
Ellen Pearlman is using Open BCI to create a brain opera, and she
draws attention to the way that, unlike previous BCIs, it can be
implemented and developed by anyone. It is significant in the way
that it enables users to develop custom code and multi-modal
interfaces that are especially attractive for artists, musicians,
performers and makers. As Pearlman notes, “OpenBCI enables
artists to reimagine the scenario though the use of these brain
computer interface technologies.” (Pearlman 2014). Tools such as
OpenBCI offer the potential to open brain mapping much in the
way that inexpensive and well-documented sensors have
supported the development of citizen science. “The GPS and
recording capabilities within modern mobile devices are
becoming practical sources for citizen science data. This moves us
towards a new era when the boundary between the scientific map
maker and user will become increasingly blurred and dynamic.”
(Westhead et al. 2013).
The theoretical critique of cartography made space for alternative
mappings by a wide range of practitioners, especially artists. As
Crampton notes, “Perhaps the most noteworthy has been map
experimentation by the artistic community, especially with
representation and the map’s role in creating a sense of
geographical meaning (Casey 2002; kanarinka 2006a). For
example, a number of artists have explored how maps are political
and how mapping can be a political act.” He calls these
“subversive cartographies”.
Conclusion
The Neuro Memento Mori sculpture is a response to Westhead’s
question, “what is a ‘map’?” It is also part of a continuum of
portraits made by artists to explore death. This contemporary
memento mori experiment is presented in a time-based and spatial
form, using moving images projection-mapped onto a figurative
sculpture. The sculpture is, according to Anker and Frazzetto’s
definition, a neurocultural product. These neurocultural products
“not only draw inspiration from the beauty and wonders of brain
anatomy and mechanisms, but also have the power to critically
address neuroscience findings.”
Contact Information
If you have questions or suggestions regarding this document,
please contact Jane Prophet at “jprophet@cityu.edu.hk”.
Acknowledgements
The research discussed here was supported by Jane Prophet’s
Start Up Grant 9380065 from City University, Hong Kong and a
Humanities and Social Sciences Prestigous Fellowship from the
Research Grant Council, Hong Kong. Thanks to Annick Lung and
Ivan Zhao for assistance in the production of Neuro Memento
Mori.
References
BAHRAMI, B., OLSEN, K., LATHAM, P. E., ROEPSTORFF, A., REES,
G., & FRITH, C. D. 2010. Optimally interacting
minds. Science, 329(5995), 1081-1085.
CECCARELLI, L. 2013 On the frontier of science: An American
rhetoric of exploration and exploitation. Michigan State
University Press.
CARBONI, A. 2014. EM:toolkit: cartography as embodied
datification, delivered as Conference Paper at Media Architecture
Biennale 2014, Aarhus University.
CRAMPTON, J. W., & KRYGIER, J. 2006. An introduction to critical
cartography. ACME: an International E-journal for Critical
Geographies, 4(1), 11-33.
CRAMPTON, J. W. 2011. Mapping: A critical introduction to
cartography and GIS(Vol. 11). John Wiley & Sons.
BAUMGARTNER, R., & SOMORJAI, R. 2001. Graphical display of
fMRI data: visualizing multidimensional space. Magnetic
resonance imaging, 19(2), 283-286.
DE CAMBRAY, B. 1993. Three-dimensional (3D) modelling in a
geographical database. In Auto-Carto Conference. American
Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 338-338.
DESMOND, J. E., & CHEN, S. A. 2002. Ethical issues in the clinical
application of fMRI: factors affecting the validity and
interpretation of activations. Brain and cognition, 50(3), 482-497.
FITZGERALD, D., MATUSALL, S., SKEWES, J., & ROEPSTORFF, A.
2014. What’s so critical about Critical Neuroscience? Rethinking
experiment, enacting critique. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8.
GRUBER, D., JACK, J., KERANEN, L., MCKENZIE, J. M., & MORRIS,
M. B. 2011. Rhetoric and the neurosciences: Engagement and
exploration. Poroi, 7(1), 11.
HARAWAY, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in
feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies,
575-599.
HARAWAY, D. J. 1997. Modest− Witness@ Second− Millennium.
FemaleMan− Meets− OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience.
Psychology Press.
HARRIS, Y. 2014. Score as Relationship. Sound & Score: Essays
on Sound, Score and Notation, 195-205.
HARLEY, J. B. 1988. Maps, Knowledge, and Power. In, Denis
Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels (eds.), The Iconography of
Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and
Use of Past Environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
HARLEY, J. B. 1989. Deconstructing the map. In Cartographica:
The International Journal for Geographic Information and
Geovisualization, 26(2), 1-20.
JOSIPOVIC, Z. 2010. Duality and nonduality in meditation research.
Consciousness and cognition 19, no. 4. 1119-1121.
MA, Y., HOF, P. R., GRANT, S. C., BLACKBAND, S. J., BENNETT, R.,
SLATEST, L., & BENVENISTE, H. 2005. A three-dimensional digital
atlas database of the adult C57BL/6J mouse brain by magnetic
resonance microscopy. Neuroscience,135(4), 1203-1215.
JOSIPOVIC, Z., DINSTEIN, I., WEBER, J., & HEEGER, D. J. 2011.
Influence of meditation on anti-correlated networks in the
brain. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 5.
KROOS, C., & HERATH, D. C. 2012. Evoking agency: Attention
model and behavior control in a robotic art
installation. Leonardo, 45(5), 401-407.
KRYGIER, J., & WOOD, D. 2009. Ce n’est pas le monde (This is not
the world). In Rethinking Maps: New frontiers in cartographic
theory, 189-220.
MONMONIER, M. S. 1995. Drawing the line: Tales of maps and
cartocontroversy.
PEARLMAN, E. The Volumetric Society of New York,
http://www.meetup.com/volumetric/?page_start=1409876411000
PERKINS, CHRIS. 2003. Cartography: Mapping theory. Progress in
Human Geography 27, 341-51.
PROPEN, A. D. 2011. 7 Cartographic representation and the
construction of lived worlds. Rethinking Maps: New Frontiers in
Cartographic Theory, 113-130.
PROPHET, J. (in Manuscript). Self-Portrait of the Artist Meditating
on Death: Feminist Technoscience and the Apparatus of
Contemporary Neuroscience Experiments. In The Routledge
Handbook to Biology in Art and Architecture, New York,
Routledge, C. Terranova and M. Tromble, Ed.
THOMPSON, P. M., WOODS, R. P., MEGA, M. S., & TOGA, A. W.
2000. Mathematical/computational challenges in creating
deformable and probabilistic atlases of the human brain. Human
brain mapping, 9(2), 81-92.
VESSEL, E. A., STARR, G. G., & RUBIN, N. 2012. The brain on art:
intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode
network. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 6.
WEISBERG, D. S., KEIL, F. C., GOODSTEIN, J., RAWSON, E., & GRAY,
J. R. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations.
Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(3), 470-477.
WESTHEAD, R. K., SMITH, M., SHELLEY, W. A., PEDLEY, R. C.,
FORD, J., & NAPIER, B. 2013. Mobile spatial mapping and
augmented reality applications for environmental
geoscience. Journal of Internet Technology and Secured
Transactions, 2(1-4), 185-190.
ZASLAVSKY, I., BALDOCK, R. A., & BOLINE, J. 2014.
Cyberinfrastructure for the digital brain: spatial standards for
integrating rodent brain atlases. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 8.
1-17
