Abstract:Although neurosciences have made notable progress in theory and technology, a significant methodological issue persists with the continued reliance on homogeneous sample groups (Burns et al., 2019). This observation is neither new nor recent, as several authors have already raised concerns about the fact that behavioral scientists base their conclusions mostly on samples composed almost exclusively of people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies, even though these groups are very peculiar, representing only 12% of all humans and may be considered outliers (Henrich et al., 2010). The problem is exacerbated by the frequent use of convenience samples, which tend to consist primarily of university students, resulting in a narrower demographic range that fails to represent the broader diversity within society. The inclusion of more diverse populations is crucial, notably in light of the nature versus nurture debate. It is indeed now widely accepted that both cultural and biological factors contribute to shaping human psychology and behaviors (Chiao and Ambady, 2007). However, the lack of diversity in population samples diminishes the impact of cultural (nurture) factors in the obtained results and makes it difficult to claim whether neurocognitive processes are universal or culture specific (Burns et al., 2019). Beyond cultural differences, the lack of access to diverse populations can hinder the exploration of innovative research questions in the field, which may require targeting specific populations that use, for instance, different metric systems, have unique hierarchical structures, or have experienced a unique historical event. A critical question thus remains: Why does the pursuit of greater diversity in population samples remain so limited? Part of the answer is undoubtedly tied to the unequal distribution of funding and the number of scientists in specific parts of the world who lack the resources to conduct research ... Correspondence should be addressed to Emilie A. Caspar at emilie.caspar{at}ugent.be.

The tip of the iceberg: A call to embrace anti-localizationism in human neuroscience research

Issues in localization of brain function: The case of lateralized frontal cortex in cognition, emotion, and psychopathology

A New Research Trend in Social Neuroscience: Towards an Interactive-Brain Neuroscience

Large-scale neurophysiology and single-cell profiling in human neuroscience

Editorial: Understanding the Heterogeneity and Spatial Brain Environment of Neurodegenerative Diseases Through Conventional and Future Methods

Clarifying the Interaction Types in Two-Person Neuroscience Research.

The personal brain

Exploration, inference and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine

Localisation of function in the brain: a rethink

Guidelines for Inclusive and Diverse Human Neuroscience Research Practices

Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research

Neuroemergentism: A Framework for Studying Cognition and the Brain

The impact of traditional neuroimaging methods on the spatial localization of cortical areas

Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias

Real-Life Neuroscience: An Ecological Approach to Brain and Behavior Research

Keep it real: rethinking the primacy of experimental control in cognitive neuroscience

Moving Beyond Processing and Analysis-Related Variation in Neuroscience

Mind Unveiled: Cutting-Edge Neuroscience and Precision Brain Mapping

Neuroscience and Translation

Understanding brain networks and brain organization

Overcoming the phenomenological Perpetuum mobile in clinical cognitive neuroscience for the benefit of replicability in research and the societal view on mental disorders