8 ms·
you're telling me the results of this paper were likely bs? --- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811909712029 https://www.sciencedirec
by bschne 9mo ago
you're telling me the results of this paper were likely bs? --- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811909712029 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10538...
- parpfish 9mo agoThe point of the salmon paper is to demonstrate to people “if you do your stats wrong, you’re going to think noise is real” and not “fmri is bs”
- prefrontal 9mo agoAs the first author on the salmon paper, yes, that was exactly our point. Researchers were capitalizing on chance in many cases as they failed to do effective corrections to the multiple comparisons problem. We argued with the dead fish that they should.
- rdgthree 9mo agoNothing to add to this conversation in particular, but just wanted to say - truly amazing paper. Well done!
- prefrontal 9mo agoMany thanks! It was a ton of fun. Hard to beleive that we are coming up on 20 years since the data for the salmon was first collected...
- squeefers 9mo ago[flagged]
- chuckadams 9mo ago> We argued with the dead fish that they should. Arguing with a dead fish may be a sign you're working too hard :)
- prefrontal 9mo agoYeah, it did prove to be a rather one-sided conversation... ;)
- chuckadams 9mo agoDid you try tuning it? https://youtu.be/F2y92obnsc0 https://youtu.be/F2y92obnsc0
- fishnchips 9mo agoOh man you stole my thunder. I hoped to be the first to bring up the dead salmon.
- kspacewalk2 9mo agoCurious what you find to be "bs" about the results of this paper? That statistical corrections are necessary when analysing fMRI scans to prevent spurious "activations" that are only there by chance?
- koolala 9mo agoThey were being sarcastic.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]