Neuroscientists Too Often Exceed Chance Levels Only By Chance


Many neuroscientific studies are based on relatively small sample sizes, but with large data sets — together, that makes the studies rife for generating apparently meaningful results that are actually just being generated by chance background “noise,” according to a new study discussed by Neuroskeptic in Discover. And many neuroscientific studies have not been correcting for these possible biases.

Machine Learning: Exceeding Chance Level By Chance (Discover, January 18, 2015)

Support MIA

MIA relies on the support of its readers to exist. Please consider a donation to help us provide news, essays, podcasts and continuing education courses that explore alternatives to the current paradigm of psychiatric care. Your tax-deductible donation will help build a community devoted to creating such change.

Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Billing Details

Donation Total: $20 One Time


  1. Which is because a lot of biomedical scientists don’t know sh*t about statistics and don’t see a problem in increasing the numbers until but not over the point when they reach the magical p<0.05. And if you actually design and perform the experiments the way you should your supervisor complains why you get so few positive results. Welcome to reality.

    Report comment