Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: O’Donnell, M. B. & Falk, E. B. (2015). Big data under the microscope and brains in social context: Integrating methods from computational social science and neuroscience.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 274-289.
doi: 10.1177/0002716215569446.

Abstract: Methods for analyzing neural and computational social science data are usually used by different types of scientists and generally seen as distinct, but they strongly complement one another. Computational social science methodologies can strengthen and contextualize individual-level analysis, specifically our understanding of the brain. Neuroscience can help to unpack the mechanisms that lead from micro- through meso- to macrolevel observations. Integrating levels of analysis is essential to unified progress in social research. We present two example areas that illustrate this integration. First, combining egocentric social network data with neural variables from the “egos” provides insight about why and for whom certain types of antismoking messages may be more or less effective. Second, combining tools from natural language processing with neuroimaging reveals mechanisms involved in successful message propagation, and suggests links from microscopic to macroscopic scales.

Journal Article 2: Lewis, P. M., Thomson, R. H., Rosenfeld, J. V., & Fitzgerald, P. B. (2016). Brain neuromodulation techniques: A review. Neuroscientist, 22(4), 406-421.
doi: 10.1177/1073858416646707.

Abstract: The modulation of brain function via the application of weak direct current was first observed directly in the early 19th century. In the past 3 decades, transcranial magnetic stimulation and deep brain stimulation have undergone clinical translation, offering alternatives to pharmacological treatment of neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. Further development of novel neuromodulation techniques employing ultrasound, micro-scale magnetic fields and optogenetics is being propelled by a rapidly improving understanding of the clinical and experimental applications of artificially stimulating or depressing brain activity in human health and disease. With the current rapid growth in neuromodulation technologies and applications, it is timely to review the genesis of the field and the current state of the art in this area.

Journal Article 3: Vaske, J. C. (2017). Using biosocial criminology to understand and improve treatment outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(8), 1050-1072.
doi: 10.1177/0093854817716484.

Abstract: Research has extensively cataloged the types of interventions that prevent and treat antisocial behavior across the life course. Despite our knowledge of which interventions “work,” there is a limited understanding of why these practices are effective and who does (or does not) benefit from traditional evidence-based practices (EBPs). The current study reviews the literature on the biopsychological mechanisms and moderators of EBPs across the life course, and it provides recommendations to clinicians and program developers based on these findings. The literature typically shows that EBPs may reduce antisocial behavior because these programs alter clients’ biological systems responsible for stress response and self-regulation. Similarly, individuals who receive fewer benefits from EBPs have weaker stress responses, difficulty processing punishment, increased reward sensitivity, and problems with attention, self-regulation, and cognitive flexibility. The implications of these findings are discussed for each stage of the life course.