13 research outputs found

    Reproducibility in the absence of selective reporting : An illustration from large-scale brain asymmetry research

    Get PDF
    Altres ajuts: Max Planck Society (Germany).The problem of poor reproducibility of scientific findings has received much attention over recent years, in a variety of fields including psychology and neuroscience. The problem has been partly attributed to publication bias and unwanted practices such as p-hacking. Low statistical power in individual studies is also understood to be an important factor. In a recent multisite collaborative study, we mapped brain anatomical left-right asymmetries for regional measures of surface area and cortical thickness, in 99 MRI datasets from around the world, for a total of over 17,000 participants. In the present study, we revisited these hemispheric effects from the perspective of reproducibility. Within each dataset, we considered that an effect had been reproduced when it matched the meta-analytic effect from the 98 other datasets, in terms of effect direction and significance threshold. In this sense, the results within each dataset were viewed as coming from separate studies in an "ideal publishing environment," that is, free from selective reporting and p hacking. We found an average reproducibility rate of 63.2% (SD = 22.9%, min = 22.2%, max = 97.0%). As expected, reproducibility was higher for larger effects and in larger datasets. Reproducibility was not obviously related to the age of participants, scanner field strength, FreeSurfer software version, cortical regional measurement reliability, or regional size. These findings constitute an empirical illustration of reproducibility in the absence of publication bias or p hacking, when assessing realistic biological effects in heterogeneous neuroscience data, and given typically-used sample sizes

    Spatial updating of virtual displays

    No full text
    In four experiments, we examined observers\u27 ability to locate objects in virtual displays while rotating to new perspectives. In Experiment 1, participants updated the locations of previously seen landmarks in a display while rotating themselves to new views (viewer task) or while rotating the display itself (display task). Updating was faster and more accurate in the viewer task than in the display task. In Experiment 2, we compared updating performance during active and passive self-rotation. Participants rotated themselves in a swivel chair (active task) or were rotated in the chair by the experimenter (passive task). A minimal advantage was found for the active task. In the final experiments, we tested similar manipulations with an asymmetrical display. In Experiment 3, updating during the viewer task was again superior to updating during the display task. In Experiment 4, we found no difference in updating between active and passive self-movement. These results are discussed in terms of differences in sources of extraretinal information available in each movement condition
    corecore