We will discuss a recent paper by Taylor et al. (2023): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811923002896. They discuss the merits of highlighting results instead of hiding them; that is, clearly marking which voxels and clusters pass a given significance threshold, but still highlighting sub-threshold results, with opacity proportional to the strength of the effect. They use this to illustrate how there in fact may be more agreement between researchers than previously thought, using the NARPS dataset as an example. By adopting a continuous, "highlighted" approach, it becomes clear that the majority of effects are in the same location and that the effect size is in the same direction, compared to an approach that only permits rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis. We will also talk about the implications of this approach for creating figures, detecting artifacts, and aiding reproducibility.