Cited by 868Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsStatistics Education and Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance

Abstract

In theory, a comparison of two experimental effects requires a statistical test on their difference. In practice, this comparison is often based on an incorrect procedure involving two separate tests in which researchers conclude that effects differ when one effect is significant (P < 0.05) but the other is not (P > 0.05). We reviewed 513 behavioral, systems and cognitive neuroscience articles in five top-ranking journals (Science, Nature, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron and The Journal of Neuroscience) and found that 78 used the correct procedure and 79 used the incorrect procedure. An additional analysis suggests that incorrect analyses of interactions are even more common in cellular and molecular neuroscience. We discuss scenarios in which the erroneous procedure is particularly beguiling.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.2886

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 868

Metadata

Authors
Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B. U., & Wagenmakers, E.-J.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Nieuwenhuis, Sander
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2011-08-26
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
1105-1107
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2165810797
Cited by
864
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 65
FWCI
68.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
interaction effects, effect size comparison, significance testing, statistical errors, two-sample t-test, neuroscience literature
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Neurons, Neurosciences, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review