<p dir="ltr">Fwiw, 23 and me has a nice little reliability metric that looks well implemented. It's like yelp stars, but then you can expand the results for stuff like "only studied in white people" etc.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 17, 2013 6:30 PM, "John Withers" <<a href="mailto:jwithers@reddagger.org">jwithers@reddagger.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 04/17/2013 03:11 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I can appreciate both the idea that phrenology doesn't work and the idea that there is some amount of statistical consistency across populations in roughly what brain regions do what and how people respond to stimulation of various kinds in various regions.<br>
Where would you say the distinction relevant to playing with tdcs is, if you can? (So this can be part of the documentation being assembled, I hope.)<br>
<br>
On Apr 17, 2013 3:04 PM, "Kelly" <<a href="mailto:hurtstotouchfire@gmail.com" target="_blank">hurtstotouchfire@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hurtstotouchfire@gmail.com" target="_blank">hurtstotouchfire@<u></u>gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
I'd just like to remind everyone that phrenology doesn't work,<br>
regardless of what you put in your table. But a list of some basic<br>
regions with citations would be an awesome start. It's probably<br>
worth making roughly tabular even if some line items are wildly<br>
less dependable than others because there are probably a few<br>
parameters that you care about for each region.<br>
<br>
K<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe that Kelly was being somewhat satirical with the phrenology comment and mainly trying to get across the idea of making a chart in the manner outlined.<br>
<br>
This is less a matter of super exact positioning than the reliability of small studies. The electrodes we use are 2" rounds. That's a huge swath of brain. What's more important is that most TDCS studies are small. Thus not all that reliable. This is a major problem with pretty much the whole cogsci field and has been a big deal lately.<br>
<br>
In the long run, I will probably want to add some kind of power/confidence kind of thing to various points and results. Right now I am just focused on getting done with what I have and getting it up there.<br>
<br>
j<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Neuro mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Neuro@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Neuro@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/neuro" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/neuro</a><br>
</blockquote></div>