Sequential computerized tomography and positron emission tomography studies in a patient with malignant glioma

1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 457-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
JANE B. ALAVI ◽  
ABASS ALAVI ◽  
HERBERT I. GOLDBERG ◽  
ROBERT DANN ◽  
WILLIAM HICKEY ◽  
...  
2003 ◽  
Vol 168 (11) ◽  
pp. 1293-1297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Fritscher-Ravens ◽  
Bruce L. Davidson ◽  
Hans-Peter Hauber ◽  
Karl H. Bohuslavizki ◽  
Christoph Bobrowski ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Dumit

The ArgumentIn this article I argue that brain images constructed with computerized tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) are part of a category of “expert images” and are both visually persuasive and also particularly difficult to interpret and understand by non-experts. Following the innovative judicial analogy of “demonstrative evidence” traced by Jennifer Mnookin (1998), I show how brain images are more than mere illustrations when they enter popular culture and courtrooms. Attending to the role of experts in producing data in the form of images, in selecting extreme images for publication, and in testifying as to their relevance, I argue that there is an undue risk in courtrooms that brain images will not be seen as prejudiced, stylized representations of correlation, but rather as straightforward, objective photographs of, for example, madness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document