Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Opinion, Novel Tools and Methods

Estimation for Better Inference in Neuroscience

Robert J. Calin-Jageman and Geoff Cumming
eNeuro 1 August 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0205-19.2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0205-19.2019
Robert J. Calin-Jageman
1Dominican University, River Forest, Illinois 60305
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Robert J. Calin-Jageman
Geoff Cumming
2La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Geoff Cumming
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Visualizations emphasizing testing versus estimation. Both plots are from the same experiment examining the effect of caffeine on memory (Borota et al., 2014). A, A traditional bar graph. The bars represent each group mean; the error bars represent the SEM. The * indicates a statistically significant difference, p = 0.05. B, An estimation plot of the same data. In this plot the small circles represent the individual participants. The large circles with error bars represent each group mean with their 95% confidence intervals. Critically, an estimation plot emphasizes the effect size of interest for this design: the difference between the group means. This is depicted on the “difference axis” on the right. The 0 point of this axis is based on the mean of a reference group (in this case the placebo group). The filled triangle shows the difference between groups in this sample. The shaded curve shows the entire distribution of expected sampling error for the difference between the means. The error bar on the triangle indicates the 95% confidence interval for the difference between means. The confidence interval represents the range of parameter values which remain compatible with the data; that is, the variety of effect sizes that are not rejected at α = 0.05. The range of compatible values is very long and includes values that would be impossible to reliably detect with feasible sample sizes. Given this, research conclusions should be tentative and expectations for replication should be tempered. This difference plot was generated using R. The data from A and B was extracted from Borota et al. (2014).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Visualizations emphasizing testing versus estimation. Both plots are from the same experiments examining the effect of oxytocin on social behavior (Kosfeld et al., 2005). A, A bar graph showing the effect of intranasal oxytocin on the amount invested in a trust (left) and risk (right) game. Each bar represents group means and error bars represent ± 1 SE. There is a statistically significant effect of oxytocin in the trust game (p = 0.04, on tailed), but not in the risk game. The difference in statistical significance status can give the impression that oxytocin specifically influences performance in the trust game, but a formal test for an interaction is not significant (p = 0.23). B, Estimation plots of the same data. The plots compare investment in the oxytocin and investment condition in the trust (left) and risk (right) games. Small circles represent individual participants. Large circles with error bars show group means with 90% confidence intervals (90% confidence was selected to match the stringency of the one-tailed test used in the original paper). The triangles represent the observed difference between groups, with 90% confidence intervals. The curves indicate the entire range of expected sampling error in estimating the mean difference. Note the considerable overlap in the estimated oxytocin effects in the trust and risk games. This correctly suggests that there are many compatible effect sizes in common and that these data do not support strong claims for an interaction. This figure was adapted with permission from Calin-Jageman and Cumming (2019).

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 6 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 6, Issue 4
July/August 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Estimation for Better Inference in Neuroscience
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Estimation for Better Inference in Neuroscience
Robert J. Calin-Jageman, Geoff Cumming
eNeuro 1 August 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0205-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0205-19.2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Estimation for Better Inference in Neuroscience
Robert J. Calin-Jageman, Geoff Cumming
eNeuro 1 August 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0205-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0205-19.2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Estimation for better inference in neuroscience
    • The estimation approach
    • Estimation in action
    • Estimation thinking for an improved research cycle
    • Estimation helps calibrate research conclusions to uncertainty
    • Estimation fosters thoughtful research planning and optimization
    • Estimation can mitigate publication bias
    • Estimation facilitates accurate comparisons across results
    • Some important clarifications and caveats
    • Resources for estimation
    • Notes on analysis of data from Kosfeld et al. (2005)
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • estimation
  • neuroscience methods
  • statistical inference

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Opinion

  • Promoting and Optimizing the Use of 3D-Printed Objects in Spontaneous Recognition Memory Tasks in Rodents: A Method for Improving Rigor and Reproducibility
  • Exposure to Sleep, Rest, or Exercise Impacts Skill Memory Consolidation but so Too Can a Challenging Practice Schedule
  • Toward Standardized Guidelines for Investigating Neural Circuit Control of Behavior in Animal Research
Show more Opinion

Novel Tools and Methods

  • Universal Guide for Skull Extraction and Custom-Fitting of Implants to Continuous and Discontinuous Skulls
  • Recording Synaptic Transmission from Auditory Mixed Synapses on the Mauthner Cells of Developing Zebrafish
  • Selectively Imaging Cranial Sensory Ganglion Neurons Using AAV-PHP.S
Show more Novel Tools and Methods

Subjects

  • Reporting Statistics
  • Novel Tools and Methods
  • Opinion

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.