Geffen Asher, Bland Nicholas, Sale Martin V
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Imaging Neurosci (Camb). 2024 Nov 5;2. doi: 10.1162/imag_a_00345. eCollection 2024.
The fields of neuroscience and psychology are currently in the midst of aso-called reproducibility crisis, with growing concerns regarding a history ofweak effect sizes and low statistical power in much of the research published inthese fields over the last few decades. Whilst the traditional approach foraddressing this criticism has been to increasesample sizes, there are many research contexts in which the number ofper participant may be of equal importance. Thepresent study aimed to compare the relative importance of participants andtrials in the detection of phase-dependent phenomena, which are measured acrossa range of neuroscientific contexts (e.g., neural oscillations, non-invasivebrain stimulation). This was achievable within a simulated environment where onecan manipulate the strength of this phase dependency in two types of outcomevariables: one with normally distributed residuals (idealistic) and onecomparable with motor-evoked potentials (an MEP-like variable). We compared thestatistical power across thousands of experiments with the same number ofsessions per experiment but with different proportions of participants andnumber of sessions per participant (30 participants × 1 session, 15participants × 2 sessions, and 10 participants × 3 sessions), withthe trials being pooled across sessions for each participant. These simulationswere performed for both outcome variables (idealistic and MEP-like) and fourdifferent effect sizes (0.075-"weak,"0.1-"moderate," 0.125-"strong,"0.15-"very strong"), as well as separate control scenarioswith no true effect. Across all scenarios with (true) discoverable effects, andfor both outcome types, there was a statistical benefit for experimentsmaximising the number of trials rather than the number of participants (i.e., itwas always beneficial to recruit fewer participants but have them complete moretrials). These findings emphasise the importance of obtaining sufficientindividual-level data rather than simply increasing number of participants.
神经科学和心理学领域目前正处于一场所谓的可重复性危机之中,人们越来越担心在过去几十年里这些领域发表的许多研究中,效应量微弱和统计功效低下的问题由来已久。虽然应对这种批评的传统方法是增加样本量,但在许多研究背景下,每个参与者的试验次数可能同样重要。本研究旨在比较参与者和试验次数在检测相位依赖现象中的相对重要性,这些现象是在一系列神经科学背景下(如神经振荡、非侵入性脑刺激)进行测量的。这在一个模拟环境中是可以实现的,在该环境中,可以在两种类型的结果变量中操纵这种相位依赖的强度:一种具有正态分布的残差(理想情况),另一种与运动诱发电位相当(类似运动诱发电位的变量)。我们比较了数千次实验的统计功效,每个实验的 session 数量相同,但参与者比例不同,且每个参与者的 session 数量也不同(30 名参与者×1 个 session,15 名参与者×2 个 sessions,10 名参与者×3 个 sessions),每个参与者的试验在各个 session 中汇总。针对这两种结果变量(理想情况和类似运动诱发电位)以及四种不同的效应量(0.075 - “微弱”,0.1 - “中等”,0.125 - “强”,0.15 - “非常强”)进行了这些模拟,以及没有真实效应的单独对照场景。在所有具有(真实)可发现效应的场景中,对于两种结果类型,最大化试验次数而非参与者数量的实验具有统计优势(即,招募较少的参与者但让他们完成更多的试验总是有益的)。这些发现强调了获得足够个体水平数据的重要性,而不是仅仅增加参与者数量。