18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="P1">Most neuroscientists would agree that for brain research to progress, we have to know which experimental manipulations have no effect as much as identify those that do have an effect. The dominant statistical approaches used in neuroscience rely on <i>p</i>-values and can establish the latter but not the former. This makes non-significant findings difficult to interpret – do they support the null hypothesis or are they simply not informative? Here we show how Bayesian hypothesis testing can be used in neuroscience studies to establish both whether there is evidence of absence and whether there is absence of evidence. Through simple tutorial-style examples of Bayesian t-tests and ANOVAs using the open source project JASP, this article aims to empower neuroscientists to use this approach to provide compelling and rigorous evidence for the absence of an effect. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP

          Bayesian hypothesis testing presents an attractive alternative to p value hypothesis testing. Part I of this series outlined several advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing, including the ability to quantify evidence and the ability to monitor and update this evidence as data come in, without the need to know the intention with which the data were collected. Despite these and other practical advantages, Bayesian hypothesis tests are still reported relatively rarely. An important impediment to the widespread adoption of Bayesian tests is arguably the lack of user-friendly software for the run-of-the-mill statistical problems that confront psychologists for the analysis of almost every experiment: the t-test, ANOVA, correlation, regression, and contingency tables. In Part II of this series we introduce JASP (http://www.jasp-stats.org), an open-source, cross-platform, user-friendly graphical software package that allows users to carry out Bayesian hypothesis tests for standard statistical problems. JASP is based in part on the Bayesian analyses implemented in Morey and Rouder’s BayesFactor package for R. Armed with JASP, the practical advantages of Bayesian hypothesis testing are only a mouse click away.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature

            We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by analyzing 26,841 statistical records from 3,801 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently. The reported median effect size was D = 0.93 (interquartile range: 0.64–1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and D = 0.24 (0.11–0.42) for nonsignificant results. Median power to detect small, medium, and large effects was 0.12, 0.44, and 0.73, reflecting no improvement through the past half-century. This is so because sample sizes have remained small. Assuming similar true effect sizes in both disciplines, power was lower in cognitive neuroscience than in psychology. Journal impact factors negatively correlated with power. Assuming a realistic range of prior probabilities for null hypotheses, false report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings, the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic, and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses.

              Psychological theories are statements of constraint. The role of hypothesis testing in psychology is to test whether specific theoretical constraints hold in data. Bayesian statistics is well suited to the task of finding supporting evidence for constraint, because it allows for comparing evidence for 2 hypotheses against each another. One issue in hypothesis testing is that constraints may hold only approximately rather than exactly, and the reason for small deviations may be trivial or uninteresting. In the large-sample limit, these uninteresting, small deviations lead to the rejection of a useful constraint. In this article, we develop several Bayes factor 1-sample tests for the assessment of approximate equality and ordinal constraints. In these tests, the null hypothesis covers a small interval of non-0 but negligible effect sizes around 0. These Bayes factors are alternatives to previously developed Bayes factors, which do not allow for interval null hypotheses, and may especially prove useful to researchers who use statistical equivalence testing. To facilitate adoption of these Bayes factor tests, we provide easy-to-use software.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature Neuroscience
                Nat Neurosci
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1097-6256
                1546-1726
                July 2020
                June 29 2020
                July 2020
                : 23
                : 7
                : 788-799
                Article
                10.1038/s41593-020-0660-4
                7610527
                32601411
                982a4141-edd4-4d0b-9977-5c0d4c6eb328
                © 2020

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article