Isn't Google just giving you timetables?
That's not useless but it's no substitute for real time information. Seeing "Your bus is six minutes away" is reassuring in a way that "Well, the bus isn't scheduled for another minute, and maybe it's running late" is not.
In that "Oops, it's diverted" case which annoyed me, my bus was, from that point of view, genuinely getting closer, I could see it on the map. And then I realised, with growing horror, that it's on a road which won't pass me. Maybe that's a glitch? Then I saw the bus itself, in the real world, too late it's actually not coming here.
There's both: GTFS is a standard for the regular schedule, and GTFS-RT is a standard for realtime information.
I'm a software engineer in this field, and this is my layman-learns-a-bit-of-shop-talk understanding of it. Both of these techniques involve multiple layers of statistical assumptions, and multiple steps of "analysing" data, which in itself involves implicit assumptions, rules of thumb and other steps that have never sat well with me. A very basic example of this kind of multi-step data massaging is "does this signal look a bit rough? No worries, let's Gaussian-filter it".
A lot of my skepticism is due to ignorance, no doubt, and I'd probably be braver in making general claims from the image I get in the end if I was more educated in the actual biophysics of it. But my main point is that it is not at all obvious that you can simply claim "signal B shows that signal A doesn't correspond to actual brain activity", when it is quite arguable whether signal B really does measure the ground truth, or whether it is simply prone to different modelling errors.
In the paper itself, the authors say that it is limited by methodology, but because they don't have the device to get an independent measure of brain activation, they use quantitative MRI. They also say it's because of radiation exposure and blah blah, but the real reason is their uni can't afford a PET scanner for them to use.
"The gold standard for CBF and CMRO2 measurements is 15O PET; but this technique requires an on-site cyclotron, a sophisticated imaging setup and substantial experience in handling three different radiotracers (CBF, 15O-water; CBV, 15O-CO; OEF, 15O-gas) of short half-lives8,35. Furthermore, this invasive method poses certain risks to participants owing to the exposure to radioactivity and arterial sampling."
This is incorrect, TUM has a PET scanner (site in German): https://nuklearmedizin.mri.tum.de/de/Patienten-Zuweiser/Pet-... Can't comment regarding the other observations.