Thought-based interaction: Same data, same methods, different results?

Reinhold Scherer

PLOS Biology, 2019, vol. 17, issue 4, 1-7

Abstract: Restoration of communication in people with complete motor paralysis—a condition called complete locked-in state (CLIS)—is one of the greatest challenges of brain-computer interface (BCI) research. New findings have recently been presented that bring us one step closer to this goal. However, the validity of the evidence has been questioned: independent reanalysis of the same data yielded significantly different results. Reasons for the failure to replicate the findings must be of a methodological nature. What is the best practice to ensure that results are stringent and conclusive and analyses replicable? Confirmation bias and the counterintuitive nature of probability may lead to an overly optimistic interpretation of new evidence. Lack of detail complicates replicability.This Primer explores a recent debate about brain-computer interface studies, observing that confirmation bias and the counter-intuitive nature of probability may lead to an overly optimistic interpretation of scientific results; furthermore, a lack of details complicates replicability of analyses and experiments.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000190 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file ... 00190&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000190

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000190

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosbiology ().