We're glad you stopped by Which still needs to be substantiated in regard to using neuroimagery in courts A Validity B Reproducibility C Reliability D All of these. This page is here to walk you through essential details with clear and straightforward explanations. Our goal is to make your learning experience easy, enriching, and enjoyable. Start exploring and find the information you need!
Answer :
Validity, reproducibility, and reliability still need to be substantiated in regard to using neuroimagery in courts. Option D.
In regard to using neuroimagery in courts, all of the listed factors - validity, reproducibility, and reliability - still need to be substantiated.
Validity refers to whether neuroimagery can accurately identify mental states or conditions.
Reproducibility refers to the ability to yield consistent results in different contexts or with different individuals.
Reliability refers to whether the obtained results are consistent and dependable over time.
Neuroimagery, despite its advancements, is a field that is still in evolution and more research is necessary to satisfactorily answer these questions.
Hence, the right answer is option D. All of these.
Learn more about Neuroimagery here:
https://brainly.com/question/26181943
#SPJ11
We appreciate you taking the time to read Which still needs to be substantiated in regard to using neuroimagery in courts A Validity B Reproducibility C Reliability D All of these. We hope the insights shared have been helpful in deepening your understanding of the topic. Don't hesitate to browse our website for more valuable and informative content!
- Why do authors use plot complications in stories A To resolve all a story s conflicts at once B To increase suspense and interest C
- For one month Siera calculated her hometown s average high temperature in degrees Fahrenheit She wants to convert that temperature from degrees Fahrenheit to degrees.
Rewritten by : Batagu
Answer:
D. All Of These.
Explanation:
Using brain scans (neuroimaging) as evidence in courts is still a tricky matter. There are three important things that need to be proven before these scans can be trusted in legal cases:
a. Validity: We have to show that these brain scans actually show what they're supposed to. In a court, it means the scans should directly relate to what's being questioned, like if someone was telling the truth.
b. Reproducibility: Different scientists should get similar results when they do the same brain scan experiment. If they don't, it's hard to trust the results as proof in court.
c. Reliability: The results of these brain scans should be consistent and not easily influenced by outside factors. If the scans are all over the place and can be changed easily, they might not be good evidence in court.
So, all three things - validity, reproducibility, and reliability - need to be shown true before brain scans can be used confidently in court.
