Cho's is of the latter type. Dold, however, makes no comment when Cho gives a metaphysical explanation for his confusing results. Cho finds an acupuncturist who explains this anomaly as due to differences of yin and yang in the subjects. Dold shows no skepticism at this anecdote, nor any interest in noting that Cho and his acupuncturist are not now discussing anything remotely scientific. Still, I think her article is misleading.
Skeptics are aware of the fact that sticking needles into people has a real effect on the body.
Discovering that sticking a needle into the toe affects a part of the brain associated with the visual system could be of great importance. But no scientist will establish the value of this effect by looking for qi, meridians or differences in yin and yang. Pseudoscientists do not distinguish what can be empirically tested from what cannot. To write an article that suggests that the two can commingle in the high-tech lab is to promote a pseudoscientific argument. He should stick to physics, where presumably his methodologies are a bit more orthodox, and leave neuroscience to scientifically-minded neuroscientists, not to the likes of Dr. Pomerantz who seems to think there is hope of finding empirical evidence for metaphysical entities.