Estimation for Better Inference in Neuroscience

Abstract

The estimation approach to inference emphasizes reporting effect sizes with expressions of uncertainty (interval estimates). In this perspective we explain the estimation approach and describe how it can help nudge neuroscientists toward a more productive research cycle by fostering better planning, more thoughtful interpretation, and more balanced evaluation of evidence.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 91

1. 1.

   American Psychological Association (2010 ) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Anscombe FJ (1954 ) Fixed-sample-size analysis of sequential observations. Biometrics 10:89

   Not in our library10.2307/3001665

3. 3.

   ASA (2016 ) Ethical guidelines for statistical practice: American Statistical Association. Available at http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/EthicalGuidelines.pdf.

   Not in our library

4. 4.
   Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies · 2014

   No notice
5. 5.

   Bernard C (2016 ) Editorial: scientific rigor or rigor mortis? eNeuro 3:ENEURO.0176-16.2016.

   Not in our library10.1523/eneuro.0176-16.2016

6. 6.

   Bliss TV, Lomo T (1973 ) Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path. J Physiol 232:331–356.

   Not in our library10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010273

7. 7.

   Boekel W, Wagenmakers EJ, Belay L, Verhagen J, Brown S, Forstmann BU (2015 ) A purely confirmatory replication study of structural brain-behavior correlations. Cortex 66:115–133.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.cortex.2014.11.019

8. 8.

   Borota D, Murray E, Keceli G, Chang A, Watabe JM, Ly M, Toscano JP, Yassa MA ( 2014 ) Post-study caffeine administration enhances memory consolidation in humans. Nat Neurosci 17:201–203.

   Not in our library10.1038/nn.3623

9. 9.

   Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, Munafò MR (2013 ) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:365–376.

   Not in our library10.1038/nrn3475

10. 10.

    Calin-Jageman RJ (2017 ) After p values: the new statistics for undergraduate neuroscience education. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ 16:E1–E4.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Calin-Jageman RJ, Cumming G (2019 ) The new statistics for better science: ask how much, how uncertain, and what else is known. Am Stat 73:271–280.

    Not in our library10.1080/00031305.2018.1518266

12. 12.

    Coan JA, Schaefer HS, Davidson RJ (2006 ) Lending a hand of the neural response to threat. Psychol Sci 17:1032–1039.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x

13. 13.

    Conlisk J (2011 ) Professor Zak’s empirical studies on trust and oxytocin. J Econ Behav Organ 78:160–166.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jebo.2011.01.002

14. 14.

    Cumming G (2008 ) Replication and p intervals. Perspect Psychol Sci 3:286–300.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00079.x

15. 15.

    Cumming G (2012 ) Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Cumming G (2014 ) The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci 25:7–29.

    Not in our library10.1177/0956797613504966

17. 17.

    Cumming G, Calin-Jageman RJ (2017 ) Introduction to the new statistics: estimation, open science, and beyond. New York: Routledge.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Cumming G, Finch SU (2001 ) Four reasons to use CIs. Educ Psychol Meas 61:532–574.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Cumming G, Finch S (2005 ) Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am Psychol 60:170–180.

    Not in our library10.1037/0003-066x.60.2.170

20. 20.

    Cumming G, Maillardet R (2006 ) Confidence intervals and replication: where will the next mean fall? Psychol Methods 11:217–227.

    Not in our library10.1037/1082-989x.11.3.217

21. 21.
    Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains · 2017

    No notice
22. 22.

    Ellis PD (2010 ) The essential guide to effect sizes. New York: Cambridge UP.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Fanelli D (2012 ) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90:891–904.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7

24. 24.

    Ferguson CJ, Heene M (2012 ) A vast graveyard of undead theories: publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:555–561.

    Not in our library10.1177/1745691612459059

25. 25.

    Fidler F (2010 ) The American Psychological Association publication manual sixth edition: implications for statistics education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS8, July, 2010), Ljubljana, Slovenia. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Fidler F, Thomason N, Cumming G, Finch S, Leeman J (2004 ) Editors can lead researchers to confidence intervals, but can’t make them think: statistical reform lessons from medicine. Psychol Sci 15:119–126.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502008.x

27. 27.

    Fisher RA (1926 ) The arrangement of field experiments. J Minist Agric Gt Britain 33:503–513.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Fritz A, Scherndl T, Kühberger A (2013 ) A comprehensive review of reporting practices in psychological journals: are effect sizes really enough? Theory Psychol 23:98–122.

    Not in our library10.1177/0959354312436870

29. 29.

    Gelman A, Stern H (2006 ) The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. Am Stat 60:328–331.

    Not in our library10.1198/000313006x152649

30. 30.

    Gigerenzer G (2018 ) Statistical rituals: the replication delusion and how we got there. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 1:198–218.

    Not in our library10.1177/2515245918771329

31. 31.

    Giofrè D, Cumming G, Fresc L, Boedker I, Tressoldi P (2017 ) The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors’ reporting of statistics and use of open research practices. PLoS One 12:e0175583.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0175583

32. 32.

    Goodhill GJ (2017 ) Is neuroscience facing up to statistical power? arXiv:1701.01219. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01219.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Goodman SN (1994 ) The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 121:200.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-121-3-199408010-00008

34. 34.

    Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler SL, Drummond GB (2015 ) The fickle p value generates irreproducible results. Nat Methods 12:179–185.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3288

35. 35.

    Ho J, Tumkaya T, Aryal S, Choi H, Claridge-Chang A (2018 ) Moving beyond p values: everyday data analysis with estimation plots. bioRxiv. Advance online publication. Retrieved July 26, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/377978.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    Hodgkin AL, Huxley AF (1952 ) A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J Physiol 117:500–544.

    Not in our library10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764

37. 37.

    Hogben LT (1957 ) Statistical theory: the relationship of probability, credibility, and error. New York: Norton.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    Horvath JC, Forte JD, Carter O (2015 ) Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul 8:535–550.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.400

39. 39.

    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997 ) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. N Engl J Med 336:309–316.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199701233360422

40. 40.

    Katz B, Miledi R (1968 ) The role of calcium in neuromuscular facilitation. J Physiol 195:481–492.

    Not in our library10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008469

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.