Preregistration
preregistration
Recent views on pre-registration
A discussion on some recent perspectives on pre-registration, which has become a growing trend in the past few years. This is not just limited to neuroimaging, and it applies to most scientific fields. We will start with this overview editorial by Simmons et al. (2021): https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/34-Simmons-Nelson-Simonsohn-2021a.pdf, and also talk about a more critical perspective by Pham & Oh (2021): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michel-Pham/publication/349545600_Preregistration_Is_Neither_Sufficient_nor_Necessary_for_Good_Science/links/60fb311e2bf3553b29096aa7/Preregistration-Is-Neither-Sufficient-nor-Necessary-for-Good-Science.pdf. I would like us to discuss the pros and cons of pre-registration, and if we have time, I may do a demonstration of how to perform a pre-registration through the Open Science Framework.
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.
The problem of power in single-case neuropsychology
Case-control comparisons are a gold standard method for diagnosing and researching neuropsychological deficits and dissociations at the single-case level. These statistical tests, developed by John Crawford and collaborators, provide quantitative criteria for the classical concepts of deficit, dissociation and double-dissociation. Much attention has been given to the control of Type I (false positive) errors for these tests, but far less to the avoidance of Type II (false negative) errors; that is, to statistical power. I will describe the origins and limits of statistical power for case-control comparisons, showing that there are hard upper limits on power, which have important implications for the design and interpretation of single-case studies. My aim is to stimulate discussion of the inferential status of single-case neuropsychological evidence, particularly with respect to contemporary ideals of open science and study preregistration.