The increasing popularity of neuroimaging studies among the research community in recent decades has also garnered interest from the media. But there is concern that coverage of controversial topics, such as the ability of fMRI to “read minds”, has sensationalised the neuroimaging field and led to mounting criticism and skepticism. In order to explore this phenomenon, we mapped the frequency and tone of research and review articles regarding fMRI published in the journals Science and Nature. We also examined the frequency and tone of the newspaper articles that reported the results of these research articles. The results indicate a distinct trend in the level of interest in neuroimaging studies, the topics of research, and the concomitant criticism over time. It appears that while more sensational research articles generate more media coverage, they also receive more criticism from within the scientific community. The results also provide tentative support for the existence of a classic “hype cycle” that may raise important questions about public perception and the longterm integrity of the neuroimaging field.
