Reference
Sander Nieuwenhuis, Birte U Forstmann, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers “Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance” (2011) // Nature Neuroscience. Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC. Vol. 14. No 9. Pp. 1105–1107. DOI: 10.1038/nn.2886
Bib
@Article{nieuwenhuis2011,
title = {Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance},
volume = {14},
issn = {1546-1726},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.2886},
doi = {10.1038/nn.2886},
number = {9},
journal = {Nature Neuroscience},
publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
author = {Nieuwenhuis, Sander and Forstmann, Birte U and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan},
year = {2011},
month = {aug},
pages = {1105–1107}
}
Quotes (1)
Incorrect Statistical Procedures in Neuroscience
In theory, a comparison of two experimental effects requires a statistical test on their difference. In practice, this comparison is often based on an incorrect procedure involving two separate tests in which researchers conclude that effects differ when one effect is significant (P < 0.05) but the other is not (P > 0.05). We reviewed 513 behavioral, systems and cognitive neuroscience articles in five top-ranking journals (Science, Nature, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron and The Journal of Neuroscience) and found that 78 used the correct procedure and 79 used the incorrect procedure. An additional analysis suggests that incorrect analyses of interactions are even more common in cellular and molecular neuroscience.