@CKorponay@DrAmyJanes@NatureHumBehav The effect is widespread (in all the datasets we looked at) and pretty big. Fortunately, you can (and should) model and remove it, and we tell you how.
@CKorponay@DrAmyJanes@NatureHumBehav Cole gives a great rundown here of our new paper in NHB. Read the whole thread, but the TL;DR - physiological noise in fMRI is not stationary, and tends to grow over time (probably for to decreasing arousal), leading to apparent (artifactual) increases in functional connectivity.
I'm so excited to share the culmination of this thrilling adventure with @DrAmyJanes and @blaisefrederick, out now in @NatureHumBehav
๐ includes tools to detect and remove this pernicious ๐artifact that hides in plain sight in our #fMRI datasets
https://t.co/wQeZCvP82p
๐งต..
@wanyeburkett It took me a LONG time to pay off all my student loans, and it was a constant stressor, even in the much better economy when I was just starting out. I am absolutely fine with new graduates not having to go through that.
@northernthrux AFAIK there is no plausible way they could retrospectively federalize these crimes. And the Supreme Court canโt overturn state verdicts.
@PrezLives2022 A deal like that would be a terrible idea.
A large section of the population would see that as absolute confirmation that his prosecution was political, rather than because he had done inexcusable things, and you would NEVER then convince them otherwise.
@dan_marinazzo @Wal_yas Yes, Iโm only talking about the review process. Not defending their business model, but I think the review process is objectively better from both the author and the reviewer side.
@Wal_yas And now I realize that I misread your poll as paper review, not grant review!
Iโm even MORE in favor of non-anonymous grant review, and the need for reviewers to really justify their decisions. Weโve all suffered drive by grant assassinations.
@Wal_yas What Iโd really like to see is a (rapid) second round on grant reviews. You get the pink sheets and can do a rebuttal, and the committee meets again to assess the response and rebalance scores. Then you can clarify clear misunderstandings, and donโt miss a whole cycle.
@dan_marinazzo @Wal_yas I agree. I really like the arena review style of frontiers journals - itโs interactive, and the reviewers names are listed on the accepted paper. I think that discourages all sorts of bad/sloppy behavior. It also gives reviewers the incentive to actually help improve the paper.