e-ISSN: Pending
Negative / Null Result ReportOpen accessNeurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry

When and How to Interpret Null Results in NIBS: A Taxonomy Based on Prior Expectations and Experimental Design

Tom A. de Graaf; Tom A. de Graaf; Alexander T. Sack; Alexander T. Sack · 2018 · Frontiers in Neuroscience

WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate

The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.

The finding, in one line

In conventional statistics, a positive result rejects that hypothesis, but a null result is meaningless.

Abstract

Experiments often challenge the null hypothesis that an intervention, for instance application of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), has no effect on an outcome measure. In conventional statistics, a positive result rejects that hypothesis, but a null result is meaningless. Informally, however, researchers often do find null results meaningful to a greater or lesser extent. We present a model to guide interpretation of null results in NIBS research. Along a “gradient of surprise,” from Replication nulls through Exploration nulls to Hypothesized nulls, null results can be less or more surpr

Abstract by Tom A. de Graaf; Tom A. de Graaf; Alexander T. Sack; Alexander T. Sack, Frontiers in Neuroscience (2018) — licensed CC BY 4.0.

About to run something similar?

Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.

WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.

Metadata source: DOAJ · DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00915