Replication and innovation versus a perfect '.05'

Slotnick (this issue) makes a strong case that any attempt to assess the reliabiltiy of statistical correction procedures should use truly random data. In addition, however, there is an important side effect of the over-reliance on any given threshold to determine the worth of an experiment. Placing...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cognitive neuroscience 2017-07, Vol.8 (3), p.145-147
Main Author: Hopfinger, Joseph B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
fMRI
Functional magnetic resonance imaging
Replication
statistics
type II errors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Slotnick (this issue) makes a strong case that any attempt to assess the reliabiltiy of statistical correction procedures should use truly random data. In addition, however, there is an important side effect of the over-reliance on any given threshold to determine the worth of an experiment. Placing too much faith in any method of correction obscures the point that replication across labs remains a most critical part of scientific study. Especially for expensive methods, such as fMRI, an overemphasis on increasingly conservative thresholds can negatively impact the potential for replication of studies and the pursuit and reporting of innovative results.
ISSN:1758-8928
1758-8936
DOI:10.1080/17588928.2017.1297296