Saturday, April 2; Doelenzaal, University Library, University of Amsterdam, Singel 425 Background: According to the tri-level distinction proposed by David Marr, cognitive neuroscience research distinguishes between the computational task/competence level, the algorithmic level, and the neural implementation level. During this conference, presentations will consider what neuroimaging research tells us about phenomena at these levels and their (cor)relations. In particular, they will consider to what extent the balance or interaction between levels has been changed with the development of brain imaging techniques. Session 4 and final discussion: Beyond the individual mind – society and culture in neuroimaging It has been pointed out that most neuroscientific (and psychological, in general) investigations are for the most part carried out on Western psychology students and are thus not generalizable to the global population. What do we know about transcultural differences and what does that imply for our neuroimaging endeavours, in research design as well as interpretation? 16:30 Clement Levallois (Rotterdam): Reflection on the Increasing Societal Interest in Neuroimaging Abstract: To capture how intense is the interest for neuroimaging techniques outside of biology, it is useful to contrast it with the immediate past, and recall that more than a disinterest, it was a frank opposition to biological observations which characterized social sciences in the matters of culture and human social behavior. This reminder makes all the more striking the enthusiastic embrace of brain imaging techniques in the recent years – what caused this shift of attitude in social sciences, and the wider society? We will suggest that as series of important methodological changes were at work since the 1970s, which make of the popularity of neuroimaging less as a revolution than an evolution. Ironically, this is probably a more circumstantial aspect which accelerated the process and is responsible for a degree of fascination for neuroimaging by the social scientists, the wider public, and the biologists themselves.