you're telling me the results of this paper were likely bs? --- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10538...

▲

parpfish 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

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”

▲

prefrontal 6 days ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

rdgthree 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nothing to add to this conversation in particular, but just wanted to say - truly amazing paper. Well done!

▲

prefrontal 6 days ago | parent [-]

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...

	▲	squeefers 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

chuckadams 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> We argued with the dead fish that they should.

Arguing with a dead fish may be a sign you're working too hard :)

▲

prefrontal 6 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, it did prove to be a rather one-sided conversation... ;)

	▲	chuckadams 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Did you try tuning it? https://youtu.be/F2y92obnsc0

▲

6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

kspacewalk2 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

	▲	koolala 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		They were being sarcastic.

▲

fishnchips 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh man you stole my thunder. I hoped to be the first to bring up the dead salmon.