you're telling me the results of this paper were likely bs? --- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10538...
you're telling me the results of this paper were likely bs? --- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10538...
The 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”
As 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.
Nothing to add to this conversation in particular, but just wanted to say - truly amazing paper. Well done!
Many 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...
> We argued with the dead fish that they should.
Arguing with a dead fish may be a sign you're working too hard :)
Yeah, it did prove to be a rather one-sided conversation... ;)
Did you try tuning it? https://youtu.be/F2y92obnsc0
Curious 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?
They were being sarcastic.
Oh man you stole my thunder. I hoped to be the first to bring up the dead salmon.