Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams

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.

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty

Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman (1992)

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323

0 comments Cited 1712 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk.

Sabrina Tom, Craig Fox, Christopher Trepel … (2007)

People typically exhibit greater sensitivity to losses than to equivalent gains when making decisions. We investigated neural correlates of loss aversion while individuals decided whether to accept or reject gambles that offered a 50/50 chance of gaining or losing money. A broad set of areas (including midbrain dopaminergic regions and their targets) showed increasing activity as potential gains increased. Potential losses were represented by decreasing activity in several of these same gain-sensitive areas. Finally, individual differences in behavioral loss aversion were predicted by a measure of neural loss aversion in several regions, including the ventral striatum and prefrontal cortex.

0 comments Cited 384 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

Siri Isaksson, Colin F Camerer, Anna Dreber … (2018)

Being able to replicate scientific findings is crucial for scientific progress1-15. We replicate 21 systematically selected experimental studies in the social sciences published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 201516-36. The replications follow analysis plans reviewed by the original authors and pre-registered prior to the replications. The replications are high powered, with sample sizes on average about five times higher than in the original studies. We find a significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 13 (62%) studies, and the effect size of the replications is on average about 50% of the original effect size. Replicability varies between 12 (57%) and 14 (67%) studies for complementary replicability indicators. Consistent with these results, the estimated true-positive rate is 67% in a Bayesian analysis. The relative effect size of true positives is estimated to be 71%, suggesting that both false positives and inflated effect sizes of true positives contribute to imperfect reproducibility. Furthermore, we find that peer beliefs of replicability are strongly related to replicability, suggesting that the research community could predict which results would replicate and that failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.