Credibility
credibility
Short and Synthetically Distort: Investor Reactions to Deepfake Financial News
Recent advances in artificial intelligence have led to new forms of misinformation, including highly realistic “deepfake” synthetic media. We conduct three experiments to investigate how and why retail investors react to deepfake financial news. Results from the first two experiments provide evidence that investors use a “realism heuristic,” responding more intensely to audio and video deepfakes as their perceptual realism increases. In the third experiment, we introduce an intervention to prompt analytical thinking, varying whether participants make analytical judgments about credibility or intuitive investment judgments. When making intuitive investment judgments, investors are strongly influenced by both more and less realistic deepfakes. When making analytical credibility judgments, investors are able to discern the non-credibility of less realistic deepfakes but struggle with more realistic deepfakes. Thus, while analytical thinking can reduce the impact of less realistic deepfakes, highly realistic deepfakes are able to overcome this analytical scrutiny. Our results suggest that deepfake financial news poses novel threats to investors.
Research Data Management in neuroimaging
This set of short webinars will provide neuroscience researchers working in a neuroimaging setting with practical tips on strengthening credibility at different stages of the research project. Each webinar will be hosted by Cassandra Gould Van Praag from the Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging.
Data privacy for neuroimaging
This set of short webinars will provide neuroscience researchers working in a neuroimaging setting with practical tips on strengthening credibility at different stages of the research project. Each webinar will be hosted by Cassandra Gould Van Praag from the Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging.
Preregistration in neuroimaging
This set of short webinars will provide neuroscience researchers working in a neuroimaging setting with practical tips on strengthening credibility at different stages of the research project. Each webinar will be hosted by Cassandra Gould Van Praag from the Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging.
How can we shift research culture to drive Credibility in Neuroscience?
This webinar will demonstrate changes that are already happening at individual, institutional and funder level to shift research culture toward supporting credible research, and will allow attendees working in neuroscience to ask further questions to our speakers. Our panel of speakers, chaired by Ana Dorrego-Rivas: Emily Farran, Professor in Developmental Psychology and Academic Lead Research Culture and Integrity at the University of Surrey Rosa Sancho, Head of Research at Alzheimer's Research UK Sepideh Keshavarzi, Senior Research Fellow at the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre
Sharing data from your in vivo studies
Handling data in your in vivo studies
Preregistering your in vivo studies
How evidence synthesis can boost in vivo credibility
As part of the BNA's ongoing Credibility in Neuroscience work, this series of three short webinars will provide neuroscience researchers working in an in vivo setting with tips on how to improve the credibility of their work. Each webinar will be hosted by Emily Sena, member of the BNA's Credibility Advisory Board, with the opportunity for questions.
Embracing variation to boost reproducibility
As part of the BNA's ongoing Credibility in Neuroscience work, this series of three short webinars will provide neuroscience researchers working in an in vivo setting with tips on how to improve the credibility of their work. Each webinar will be hosted by Emily Sena, member of the BNA's Credibility Advisory Board, with the opportunity for questions.
Improving reliability through design and reporting
As part of the BNA's ongoing Credibility in Neuroscience work, this series of three short webinars will provide neuroscience researchers working in an in vivo setting with tips on how to improve the credibility of their work. Each webinar will be hosted by Emily Sena, member of the BNA's Credibility Advisory Board, with the opportunity for questions.
How we can make 3D models more reproducible
Reproducible research using stem cell derived neurons and organoids
Lessons from the credibility revolution – social thermoregulation as a case study
The goal of this talk is to first provide a realization of why the replication crisis is omnipresent and then point to several tools via which the listener can improve their own work. To do so, I will go through our own work on social thermoregulation, point out why I thought changes were necessary, discuss which shortcomings we have in our own work, which measures we have taken to reduce those shortcomings, which tools we have relied on to do so, and which steps I believe we still need to make. Specifically, I will go through the following points: Major replication failures and data fabrication in the field of psychology; Replication failures of social thermoregulation studies; Realization that many of our studies were underpowered; Realization that many of our studies were very narrow in scope (i.e., in undergraduate students and mostly in EU/US); Realization that a lot of our measures were not independently validated. I will show these for our own work (but will also show why, via a meta-analysis, we have enough confidence to proceed with social thermoregulation research). Throughout the talk I will point you to the following tools that facilitate our work: Templates for exploratory and confirmatory research and for meta-analyses (developed for our work, but easily adaptable for other programs). I will also show you how to fork our templates; A lab philosophy; A research milestones sheet for collaborations and overviews; Excel sheet for contributorship; A tutorial for exploratory research; I would recommend listeners to read through this chapter before the talk (I will repeat a lot of that work, but I will go into greater depth). own work. To do so, I will go through our own work on social thermoregulation, point out why I thought changes were necessary, discuss which shortcomings we have in our own work, which measures we have taken to reduce those shortcomings, which tools we have relied on to do so, and which steps I believe we still need to make.