Functional Neuroimaging’s Neymar Problem

By Neuroskeptic | July 31, 2014 4:26 pm

As a “World Cup tie in post” this one’s a bit late, but here’s a story that’s been getting a lot of attention: According to scientists, Neymar uses instinct and not his brain when playing football


Yes, if you believe the headlines, research has shown that legendary Brazilian forward Neymar da Silva Santos is so good, he can play with his brain switched off.

What’s the reality? The research in question used fMRI and it was published in Frontiers in Human Neurosciences: Efficient foot motor control by Neymar’s brain, by Eiichi Naito and Satoshi Hirose. The free full text is here.

Anyway, the study didn’t quite find Neymar to be some kind of brainless soccer zombie, but the results were remarkable nonetheless. Naito and Hirose write:

We scanned Neymar’s brain activity while he rotated his right ankle. We also scanned three other professional footballers, two top swimmers, and one amateur footballer, all of whom performed the identical task.

We found activations in the left foot motor cortex regions during the foot movements in all participants. However, the size and intensity of [foot motor cortical] activity was smaller in the four professional footballers than in the three other participants, and Neymar’s activity was smallest of all.

In other words, while performing a football-related motor task (ankle rotation), the pro footballers showed less neural activity than other athletes. And Neymar, one of the best players in the world, showed the least brain activity.

This study was just about one very simple movement – so the headlines claiming that Neymar uses less brainpower to play football were extrapolating wildly. There’s more to soccer than twitching your ankle. Nonetheless, the basic paradox remains – we see less brain activity in people with more expertise.

This is not a new discovery, but Naito and Hirose provide a great illustration of the phenomenon, which one might call the Neymar Effect.

For me, the Neymar Effect is a deeply disturbing one, because it seems to undermine the logic of many fMRI studies. Suppose you scan some patients with a disorder, and some healthy people, performing some task. You find that on average the patients show reduced activity in a certain area, compared to the controls. What does that mean?

The intuitive interpretation is that less activity in a brain region means less engagement of that brain region’s function. So if the region’s function is ‘memory’, say, it would be natural to read reduced activity as less remembering. The results mean that the patients are not remembering as well as the controls are.

In other words, it is natural (and very common) to start from neural activity and draw conclusions about psychological processes. A swathe of the fMRI literature is based on this approach. But the Neymar Problem is that any given dampening (or excess) of activity could just as easily reflect more (less) efficient processing, rather than less (more) processing per se. So the inference from activity to psychology is invalid.

This is a separate issue from the fallacy of reverse inference, which concerns how we ascribe ‘functions’ to brain regions. The Neymar Effect means that even if our assumptions about the localization of function are unerring, we still might go astray when it comes to interpreting quantitative differences in activity.

ResearchBlogging.orgEiichi Naito, & Satoshi Hirose (2014). Efficient foot motor control by Neymar’s brain Front. Hum. Neurosci.

  • Gozde

    Hey there,

    Great post. The final paper is available now: #openaccess

    Gozde Zorlu
    Press Manager

    • Neuroskeptic

      Thanks! I’ve updated the link.

  • Glen Roberts

    Hi, I wanted to read the post about deadly lake waters, turning birds into stone.

  • petrossa

    Exactly what i’ve been shouting in th wind for years now…. With fMRI you cannot know what the results mean, you don’t know what the brainstructure in question causes other areas to (not) do.

  • RogerSweeny

    This makes me think of Kahneman’s system 1 and system 2. When you’re good at something, you don’t have to “think about” it much. Neymar is very good at using his feet. His brain doesn’t have to spend much energy on that; it can instead build models of the field, where people are going, where a pass should be aimed, how fast, etc.

    • Neuroskeptic

      Right, that seems very plausible. Although strictly speaking we can’t infer that from the fMRI data.

  • Pingback: I’ve Got Your Missing Links Right Here (02 August 2014) – Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science()

  • Pingback: I’ve Got Your Missing Links Right Here (02 August 2014) | Gaia Gazette()

  • Pingback: PSIHOBRLOG PREPORUČUJE 04/08/2014 | PsihoBrlog()

  • Pingback: ScienceSeeker Editor’s Selections July 27 – August 2, 2014 |()

  • Pingback: 5 Artigos para Ler em 10 Minutos #4 | Dissonância Cognitiva()

  • Wouter

    Basically, it supports what many studies are suggesting these days: very little can be deducted from fmri data coming from isolated voxels/ROIs. It’s about networks and coarse scale patterns.

  • Doby Rahnev

    You can check this recent paper by Russ Poldrack who lists a number of reasons for between-group BOLD differences: He argues that the concept of “efficiency” is sufficiently vague as to not have any real explanatory value. I tend to agree. In any case, the Neymar paper is better than most others that compare different groups in that it measures a motor output that is presumably controlled in a very similar way between people.

  • Pingback: What’s Different About the Brains of Heroes? | Science Blogs | Tsangg()

  • Pingback: The Net Press What’s Different About the Brains of Heroes? – Wired | The Net Press()

  • Knowing Neurons

    Thanks for the link!! Great post!!!

  • johnLK

    I think Roger Sweeny is on the right track. Processing of highly automated movements transfers, to a large degree (not completely) from motor cortex to basal ganglia. “Automated movements” are those that are highly trained and over-learned. The neuroscience behind this is largely from Ann Graybiel’s lab. What’s going on when you tie your shoes? When you first learned to tie your shoes? Conscious control is largely serial, one-at-a-time. Automated activities can go on without rigorous conscious supervision, and can go on when conscious focus is elsewhere (think of driving). I find the rough conclusion of the Neymar finding very cool, and predicted from known neuroscience.

    But its critical to point out that, if Neymar’s foot control moved, to a large degree, from motor cortex to basal ganglia, it remains within the brain.

  • Knowing Neurons

    Great article! Thanks for the link!


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


No brain. No gain.

About Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic is a British neuroscientist who takes a skeptical look at his own field, and beyond. His blog offers a look at the latest developments in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology through a critical lens.


See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter

Collapse bottom bar

Login to your Account

E-mail address:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »