The iPhone op-ed and reverse inference in neuromarketing

What happened

In October 2011 the marketing writer Martin Lindstrom published a New York Times op-ed titled You Love Your iPhone. Literally. Russell Poldrack describes it as using unpublished fMRI data to infer that people are in love with their iPhones. A trade report says the data came from experiments run with MindSign Neuromarketing. The Times pages could not be opened for this record.

The psychological idea

Reverse inference reasons backward from activity in a brain region to a mental process. Poldrack (2006) argued that this is not deductively valid but can be informative, and that its value depends on how selectively the region responds to that process. In 2011 he wrote that regions such as the anterior insula have some of the highest base rates of activation, so they are the least able to support strong reverse inferences.

In practice

This is a marketing writer's public claim, not a documented company practice. According to reports, the op-ed linked insula activity to love and compassion. A letter led by Poldrack answered that the insula is active in as many as one third of imaging studies and that a single region rarely maps to a single mental state. A trade report counts 44 other signatories; a signatory's blog says over 40.

Why it mattered

The episode is a public example of reverse inference used to support a marketing claim. It shows why activity in one region does not by itself show a feeling such as love, and why data that have not been published cannot be checked by others.

Evidence behind the claims

• Poldrack (2011) says a New York Times op-ed by a marketing writer used unpublished fMRI data to infer that people are in love with their iPhones, and cites it as Lindstrom, You Love Your iPhone. Literally, New York Times, October 2011, page A21.

  DocumentedSource: [1]Where: Main text and reference list

• A trade news report says Lindstrom claimed the feelings people have when their phone rings match those they feel around loved ones, based on fMRI experiments with MindSign Neuromarketing, and said the insular cortex is associated with love and compassion; Yarkoni describes the study as having 16 subjects and being unpublished.

  DocumentedSources: [4] [5]Where: Research Live article text; Yarkoni blog post of 1 October 2011

• A letter led by Poldrack answered that the insula is active in as many as one third of all brain imaging studies and that there is rarely a one-to-one mapping between a brain region and a single mental state; the trade report says Poldrack and 44 other neuroscientists signed, while Yarkoni, who signed, writes of over 40 other neuroscientists and psychologists.

  DocumentedSources: [4] [5]Where: Research Live article text; Yarkoni post 'aftermath of the NYT / Lindstrom debacle'

• Poldrack (2006) argues that reverse inference from brain activity to a cognitive process is not deductively valid but can be informative, and that its usefulness is limited mainly by how selectively the region activates.

  DocumentedSource: [2]Where: Abstract recordChecked at abstract level

• Poldrack (2011) reports a Bayes factor of 2.3 for Broca's area activation raising the probability of language engagement, says anterior insula is among the regions with the highest base rates and so least able to support strong reverse inferences, and says reverse inference can generate hypotheses when based on real data.

  DocumentedSource: [1]Where: Sections on reverse inference

• Ariely and Berns (2010) state that personnel and overhead make up at least 75 per cent of the costs of an imaging project and that neuroimaging is unlikely to be more cost-effective than traditional marketing tools.

  DocumentedSource: [3]Where: Costs and benefits

• Ariely and Berns (2010) argue that single-region readouts, such as treating striatal or orbitofrontal activity as a liking signal or the insula as a disgust meter, are probably too simplistic to be useful, and that whether imaging can prospectively reveal ad effectiveness is still unknown.

  InterpretationSource: [3]Where: Revealing hidden information

People involved

• Martin Lindstrom. Marketing writer and author of the 2011 op-ed
• Russell Poldrack. Neuroscientist who analysed reverse inference and led the reply letter
• Dan Ariely. Behavioural economist, co-author of the neuromarketing review
• Gregory Berns. Neuroscientist, co-author of the neuromarketing review

In the Psy101 course

• OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 2.3: Analyzing FindingsChapter 2, Psychological Research. Method. Nearest related section; it does not discuss this topic by name.Nearest related section: it covers correlation, causation and replication. It is a general research-methods link, not about brain imaging or reverse inference.

This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.

Sources and inspection

5 of 5 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.

1. [1]
   Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data: from reverse inference to large-scale decodingPoldrack, R. Neuron 72(5), 692-697 (PubMed Central), 2011. Journal article. Critique or replication.Relevant text checkedRead the open-access article text on PubMed Central as returned by the fetch tool, including the passage citing the op-ed, the reverse inference sections and the reference entry.
2. [2]
   Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?Poldrack, R. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2), 59-63 (Europe PMC record), 2006. Journal article. Critique or replication.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the Europe PMC record with the abstract and bibliographic details. The article itself was not opened.
3. [3]
   Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in businessAriely, D; Berns, G. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(4), 284-292 (PubMed Central), 2010. Journal article. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the first 100,000 of about 115,000 characters of the open-access article as returned by the fetch tool, including the costs and the single-region passages. The last section was not read.
4. [4]
   Lindstrom brain science claims 'unsupported'Research Live. Research Live (Market Research Society), 6 October 2011, 2011. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the Research Live news report as returned by the fetch tool, which covers the op-ed, the letter and the signatory count. The New York Times pages returned an error and could not be opened.
5. [5]
   The New York Times blows it big time on brain imaging; aftermath of the NYT / Lindstrom debacleYarkoni, T. Blog posts at talyarkoni.org, 1 and 6 October 2011, 2011. News report. Critique or replication.Relevant text checkedRead Yarkoni's post of 1 October 2011 (description of the op-ed and the critique) and the follow-up post of 6 October 2011 (signatories) as returned by the fetch tool. Both are blog posts by a neuroscientist who signed the letter.

Access note: The New York Times op-ed and the printed reply could not be opened. The op-ed's content is known only through Poldrack, a trade report and a blog by a signatory. Reports give different signatory counts.

Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.

Related records and elsewhere on Psy101

• Berns and Moore: brain activity and later song sales
• Vicary's subliminal popcorn claim
• Ernest Dichter and motivation research