TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Flaws uncovered in the software researchers use to analyze fM.R.I. data

67 点作者 the_duck超过 8 年前

8 条评论

caminante超过 8 年前
Whoops...<p><pre><code> &quot;there are abundant opportunities for error, particularly when you are relying on software to do much of the work. This was made glaringly apparent back in 2009, when a graduate student conducted an fM.R.I. scan of a dead salmon and found neural activity in its brain when it was shown photographs of humans in social situations. Again, it was a salmon. And it was dead.&quot;</code></pre>
评论 #12379165 未加载
评论 #12379120 未加载
评论 #12381021 未加载
评论 #12378974 未加载
评论 #12381039 未加载
评论 #12379008 未加载
lbenes超过 8 年前
The authors&#x27; of the paper feel it is being misinterpreted and tried to submit errata to PNAS:[1]<p>They tried to change the following sentence:<p>“These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of neuroimaging results.”<p>To<p>“These results question the validity of a number of fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of weakly significant neuroimaging results.”<p>Link to discussion in &#x2F;r&#x2F;NeuroScience: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;neuroscience&#x2F;comments&#x2F;4ri72b&#x2F;the_software_for_fmri_analysis_results_in&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;neuroscience&#x2F;comments&#x2F;4ri72b&#x2F;the_so...</a><p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogs.warwick.ac.uk&#x2F;nichols&#x2F;entry&#x2F;errata_for_cluster&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogs.warwick.ac.uk&#x2F;nichols&#x2F;entry&#x2F;errata_for_cluster&#x2F;</a>
sctb超过 8 年前
Recent discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12032269" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12032269</a>
irremediable超过 8 年前
Much better article and discussion in the link that sctb posted. This article has a number of issues... it&#x27;s conflating several different problems with fMRI without really explaining them, then arguing that it&#x27;s worthless -- as opposed to just needing more groups to follow best practices.
评论 #12379810 未加载
coleca超过 8 年前
This story reminds me of the Therac-25 (although no deaths were attributed to this bug). The book &quot;Fatal Defect&quot; should be required reading for any software engineer.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Fatal-Defect-Chasing-Killer-Computer&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0679740279" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Fatal-Defect-Chasing-Killer-Computer&#x2F;...</a>
mwest超过 8 年前
Whoops. Certainly an interesting contrasting article to the recent:<p>Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practices” (2014) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12377385" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12377385</a>
brainsturgeon超过 8 年前
How does this affect (or does this apply to) the recent &quot;new brain map&quot; paper from the Human Connectome Project?<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;nature&#x2F;journal&#x2F;v536&#x2F;n7615&#x2F;full&#x2F;nature18933.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;nature&#x2F;journal&#x2F;v536&#x2F;n7615&#x2F;full&#x2F;nature1...</a>
评论 #12378981 未加载
libeclipse超过 8 年前
Am I mistaken or has this been on the front page multiple times already?