Enhancing precision in human neuroscience

Stephan Nebe, Mario Reutter, Daniel Hart Baker, Jens Bolte, Gregor Domes, Matthias Gamer, Anne Gartner, Carsten Giessing, Caroline Gurr, Kirsten Hilger, Philippe Jawinski, Louisa Kulke, Alexander Lischke, Sebastian Markett, Maria Meier, Christian Merz, Tzvetan Popov, Lara Puhlmann, Daniel Quintana, Tim SchaferAnna-Lena Schubert, Matthias Sperl, Antonia Vehlen, Tina Lonsdorf, Gordon Feld

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Human neuroscience has always been pushing the boundary of what is measurable. During the last decade, concerns about statistical power and replicability – in science in general, but also specifically in human neuroscience – have fueled an extensive debate. One important insight from this discourse is the need for larger samples, which naturally increases statistical power. An alternative is to increase the precision of measurements, which is the focus of this review. This option is often overlooked, even though statistical power benefits from increasing precision as much as from increasing sample size. Nonetheless, precision has always been at the heart of good scientific practice in human neuroscience, with researchers relying on lab traditions or rules of thumb to ensure sufficient precision for their studies. In this review, we encourage a more systematic approach to precision. We start by introducing measurement precision and its importance for well-powered studies in human neuroscience. Then, determinants for precision in a range of neuroscientific methods (MRI, M/EEG, EDA, Eye-Tracking, and Endocrinology) are elaborated. We end by discussing how a more systematic evaluation of precision and the application of respective insights can lead to an increase in reproducibility in human neuroscience.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere85980
Number of pages42
JournaleLife
Volume12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 Aug 2023

Bibliographical note

© 2023 eLife Sciences Publications Ltd.

Cite this