Hacker News Reader

Well, I think the problems with interpreting fMRI scans have been at least vaguely known since that time a dead salmon activated its neurons when asked to judge the of a person from a photo, this was in 2009.

http://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

View on HN

The dead salmon article is a bit of a red herring here. It's a clear demonstration that a shoddy statistical approach can undermine fMRI findings. Critically, the implications of the current paper extend to even research that has been rigorously analyzed using field-standard software. Statistical issues are at the heart of both papers, but the newer paper identifies problems that are subtle and ubiquitous.

I don't see how that's really relevant. The point of the dead salmon paper was "do your damn FWE corrections". The point of paper, is rather "popular tools make unsound assumptions" (or, inversely, "researchers are violating the assumptions made by their tools").

The problem in the salmon paper is easy to fix. The problem in this paper is trickier.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com