| 1. |
- Botvinik-Nezer, Rotem, et al.
(author)
-
Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams
- 2020
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 582, s. 84-88
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Data analysis workflows in many scientific domains have become increasingly complex and flexible. Here we assess the effect of this flexibility on the results of functional magnetic resonance imaging by asking 70 independent teams to analyse the same dataset, testing the same 9 ex-ante hypotheses(1). The flexibility of analytical approaches is exemplified by the fact that no two teams chose identical workflows to analyse the data. This flexibility resulted in sizeable variation in the results of hypothesis tests, even for teams whose statistical maps were highly correlated at intermediate stages of the analysis pipeline. Variation in reported results was related to several aspects of analysis methodology. Notably, a meta-analytical approach that aggregated information across teams yielded a significant consensus in activated regions. Furthermore, prediction markets of researchers in the field revealed an overestimation of the likelihood of significant findings, even by researchers with direct knowledge of the dataset(2-5). Our findings show that analytical flexibility can have substantial effects on scientific conclusions, and identify factors that may be related to variability in the analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging. The results emphasize the importance of validating and sharing complex analysis workflows, and demonstrate the need for performing and reporting multiple analyses of the same data. Potential approaches that could be used to mitigate issues related to analytical variability are discussed. The results obtained by seventy different teams analysing the same functional magnetic resonance imaging dataset show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of analytical choices and the importance of sharing workflows publicly and performing multiple analyses.
|
|
| 2. |
- Wild, Conor J, et al.
(author)
-
Effortful listening : the processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention.
- 2012
-
In: Journal of Neuroscience. - : Society for Neuroscience. - 0270-6474 .- 1529-2401. ; 32:40, s. 14010-21
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The conditions of everyday life are such that people often hear speech that has been degraded (e.g., by background noise or electronic transmission) or when they are distracted by other tasks. However, it remains unclear what role attention plays in processing speech that is difficult to understand. In the current study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess the degree to which spoken sentences were processed under distraction, and whether this depended on the acoustic quality (intelligibility) of the speech. On every trial, adult human participants attended to one of three simultaneously presented stimuli: a sentence (at one of four acoustic clarity levels), an auditory distracter, or a visual distracter. A postscan recognition test showed that clear speech was processed even when not attended, but that attention greatly enhanced the processing of degraded speech. Furthermore, speech-sensitive cortex could be parcellated according to how speech-evoked responses were modulated by attention. Responses in auditory cortex and areas along the superior temporal sulcus (STS) took the same form regardless of attention, although responses to distorted speech in portions of both posterior and anterior STS were enhanced under directed attention. In contrast, frontal regions, including left inferior frontal gyrus, were only engaged when listeners were attending to speech and these regions exhibited elevated responses to degraded, compared with clear, speech. We suggest this response is a neural marker of effortful listening. Together, our results suggest that attention enhances the processing of degraded speech by engaging higher-order mechanisms that modulate perceptual auditory processing.
|
|
