Looking for unexpected results: the need to systematize the registration of environmental variables / Buscando resultados inesperados: la necesidad de sistematizar el registro de variables ambientales

Abstract

Spanish

Why is replicating cognitive neuroscience results so difficult? Here we discuss a possible bias that could determine the systematic omission of control variables. A methodology based on the notion that cognitive processes are encapsulated undermines the adequate characterization of both the sample and its experimental context. Systematically exploring the impact of the sample and context variables implies discussing and developing standard experimentation practices. We propose actively searching for unexpected results as a starting point to do so.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brandt

M. J.

IJzerman

Dijksterhuis

Farach

F. J.

Geller

Giner-Sorolla

van’t Veer

(2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005

Fodor

J. A.

(1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Huibers

M. J. H.

de Graaf

L. E.

Peeters

F. P. M. L.

Arntz

(2010). Does the weather make us sad? Meteorological determinants of mood and depression in the general population. Psychiatry Research, 180(2–3), 143–146. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.09.016

Keil

Debener

Gratton

Junghöfer

Kappenman

E. S.

Luck

S. J.

Yee

C. M.

(2014). Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography. Psychophysiology, 51(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/psyp.12147

Olshausen

B. A.

Field

D. J.

(2005). How close are we to understanding v1? Neural Computation, 17, 1665–1699. doi:10.1162/0899766054026639

Robbins

(2010). Modularity of mind. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 201). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/