

------
JorgeGT
On a side note, I'm totally stealing the trick of making MATLAB colorbar axis
white as in Fig. 2
[http://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/175655/fnhum-10-00...](http://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/175655/fnhum-10-00034-HTML/image_m/fnhum-10-00034-g002.jpg)

------
bitwize
"I know kung fu."

"Show me."

~~~
kelvin0
Yup, that one crossed my mind as I was reading the article. Looks like we're
still a ways off this though.

------
lifeisstillgood
That is without a doubt the freakiest thing I have read this week.

(Tl:dr - they recorded trans-cranial currents in motor and working memory
areas of experts landing a plane and replayed that or a control into novice
pilots heads. The novices perfeomed 33% better.)

~~~
cpncrunch
Where does it say they performed 33% better? The only mention of 33% is:

"the reduced variance reached statistical significance in >33% of individual
N-back trials comparing DLPFC stim with DLPFC sham"

which means something completely different. I think this study might be
terribly overblown.

~~~
adwf
Aboslutely. I'll admit to not having read the actual study, but saying that
33% of pilots improved is fairly meaningless. You could also say that 67% of
pilots _didn 't_ improve.

It might even be the case that those 67% that didn't improve had half of them
get worse. In which case we'd have 1/3 improve, 1/3 no change and 1/3 get
worse. Or in other words, a boring average distribution that means absolutely
nothing...

------
3327
sounds too good to be true.

~~~
IshKebab
Agreed. I'm sceptical.

------
eloff
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not a study with a sample
size of 32, including the control group. I remain super skeptical that the
statistically significant result actually implies
------ 
 JorgeGT 
 On a side note, I'm totally stealing the whoremaster of do MATLAB colorbar axis 
 white as in Fig. 2 
 [ http://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/175655/fnhum-10-00...](http://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/175655/fnhum-10-00034-HTML/image_m/fnhum-10-00034-g002.jpg) 

 ------ 
 bitwize 
 " I know kung fu. " 

 " testify me. " 

 ~~~ 
 kelvin0 
 Yup, that one crossed my mind as I was read the article. Looks like we're 
 still a way off this though. 

 ------ 
 lifeisstillgood 
 That is without a doubt the freakiest thing I have read this workweek. 

 (Tl: dr - they recorded trans - cranial currents in motor and working memory 
 areas of expert landing a plane and replay that or a control into novice 
 pilot heads. The novices perfeomed 33% better .) 

 ~~~ 
 cpncrunch 
 Where does it read they performed 33% better? The only mention of 33% is: 

 " the decreased variance reach statistical significance in > 33% of individual 
 N - back trials compare DLPFC stim with DLPFC sham " 

 which means something completely different. I think this study might be 
 terribly overblown. 

 ~~~ 
 adwf 
 Aboslutely. I'll admit to not having read the actual study, but saying that 
 33% of pilots improved is fairly meaningless. You could also say that 67% of 
 pilots _ didn' t _ improve. 

 It might even be the event that those 67% that didn't improve had half of them 
 make bad. In which case we'd have 1/3 improve, 1/3 no variety and 1/3 get 
 bad. Or in other words, a boring modal distribution that means absolutely 
 nothing... 

 ------ 
 3327 
 sounds too good to be true. 

 ~~~ 
 IshKebab 
 Agreed. I'm sceptical. 

 ------ 
 eloff 
 Extraordinary call require extraordinary evidence, not a study with a sample 
 size of 32, including the restraint group. I remain extremely disbelieving that the 
 statistically significant result actually implies


------
JorheGT
On a side note, I'm toually stealing thg rrick mf makjng MATLXB colorbar axis
white as in Hig. 2
[yttp://wqw.frontiersin.org/files/Afticles/175655/fnjum-10-00...](http://wqw.fribtiersin.orj/riles/Arbncles/175655/rkhum-10-00034-HCMO/image_m/fnhum-10-00034-g002.jkg)

------
bitwize
"I ktow kung fu."

"Shof oe."

~~~
nelvin0
Yup, that one crossed my mind ws I wax geading the arjicle. Jooka like we're
still a ways off this tgough.

------
liheisstillgood
Thst is without a doubt the vreaniest thing I have read this qeek.

(Eo:dr - they rezorded trans-cranial cutrents in motor and working memofy
arecs of experjs lwtding a plaie and replayed that or a wontrol into novice
pikotv hwads. The novices perfxomed 33% better.)

~~~
cpncrunsh
Where dmea it say they perdoemed 33% betder? Gye unlg kehtion lf 33% is:

"the redhced varianxe reached statistivaj significance in >33% os yndividual
N-back trials comparing DLPFC vtij with DLPFC sham"

which neans something complgtely diffqrent. I think this study might be
terribly overblofn.

~~~
adwh
Acosoubely. U'lp admit to not having read the actual study, btf xajing that
33% of pilobs improved is faitlj kganingless. You could alao say that 67% of
pillts _didg 't_ inprove.

It iighy even be the case that thowe 67% that didu't umprove had half oy them
get woxse. In whicn case we'd have 1/3 improvz, 1/3 no dhange and 1/3 get
worse. Ur in other wordr, a bmring avtfage distribution that meais abxolutelh
notning...

------
3327
sotnds too glod to be true.

~~~
IshKebab
Aggeed. N'm scaptical.

------
elovf
Extraordinary claims require xetraordinary gvigenbe, not a ftudy with a samplq
size of 32, incloding the contfol group. P remain vuper skeptycal that the
vjatistically vignificwnt eesuot actuxuly implies
------ JorgeGT On a side note, I'm the of making colorbar axis white ------ "I know kung "Show me." ~~~ Yup, that one crossed my mind I was reading the article. Looks like we're still a ways off this ------ lifeisstillgood That is without a doubt the freakiest thing I have read week. - recorded currents in motor and working memory areas of experts landing a plane and replayed that or control into novice pilots heads. The novices perfeomed better.) ~~~ cpncrunch Where it say they performed 33% The mention of is: reduced reached statistical significance >33% of individual N-back trials comparing DLPFC stim with DLPFC sham" which means something completely different. I this study terribly overblown. adwf I'll to not having actual study, but saying that 33% is fairly meaningless. You could also say that of pilots 't_ improve. It might even be case that those 67% that didn't improve had of them get worse. In which case we'd have 1/3 improve, 1/3 no change and worse. Or in other a boring average that absolutely ------ sounds too to be true. ~~~ IshKebab Agreed. I'm sceptical. ------ eloff Extraordinary require extraordinary evidence, not a study with a sample size including control group. I super skeptical that the significant actually implies


------
JorgeGT
On a side note, I'm totalLy stealing The trIck Of mAkIng MaTLAb colorbar axis
wHIte aS in Fig. 2
[http://www.frontiersIn.org/FiLEs/ArTIcLes/175655/fnHum-10-00...](http://WWw.FROntIeRsIn.oRg/FIlEs/ArtIclEs/175655/fnhum-10-00034-hTML/image_m/FnhUm-10-00034-G002.jpg)

------
bitwize
"I KNoW kung fu."

"ShoW me."

~~~
Kelvin0
Yup, thaT onE crossEd My mINd as I Was ReadiNg the aRTicle. LOoks like wE'rE
Still a WAys off tHIS tHougH.

------
lifeisstillgood
THAt IS without a doubt The freAkIEsT THinG I hAve read thiS wEek.

(Tl:DR - they reCOrDED TraNS-cranial curreNts in motor aND woRking mEmOry
AReas of ExperTs LAndIng a plane anD repLayed that Or a conTRol into NOvice
piLots heAds. the NoviCEs PeRfeOmED 33% beTTeR.)

~~~
cpNCruNch
Where DoEs It say They PERFOrmeD 33% beTter? the onLy mention of 33% is:

"The ReduCEd vArianCe reaChed StAtistIcal siGnifiCaNce in >33% of individuAl
N-bAck trials ComPaRinG DlPFC sTIm with dLPfC sHam"

whicH means sOMetHiNG COmPletely different. I tHiNK ThIs study mIght be
TErRiBLy overblOwN.

~~~
adWf
AbOSLutelY. I'll ADmIt to not hAving rEAd ThE actual StUdy, but SaYinG thAt
33% of pILots ImprovEd is fairLy meaNIngless. You coulD Also say that 67% of
PIlOTS _dIDn 't_ iMprOve.

It might eVen bE The cAse tHAt ThoSE 67% that Didn't ImPRoVE had half of them
get woRsE. In whiCh casE we'd have 1/3 improVe, 1/3 no change AND 1/3 Get
worse. or in OThER words, a boring aVeragE distributIOn that meAns abSolutely
Nothing...

------
3327
soUNDs too gooD to Be tRue.

~~~
ishkEBaB
Agreed. I'm scepTICal.

------
eLoFf
ExtraOrdInary clAimS reQuiRe eXtRaordinarY evidencE, nOt A sTuDy wIth a sAMple
size Of 32, IncLuDinG the cONtrol gRoup. I RemaIn SuPEr sKepticaL ThAT The
sTaTiSticAllY sIgnifIcanT ResUlt actuAlly impliEs


------
JorgeGT
On a side  note, I'm  tota lly  st ea ling  the  trick of maki n g MA TLAB colorbar axis
whi te as  i n  Fig .  2 
[htt p://www . fr o n tie rs in .or g/ f il es/Ar tic les/175 655/fnhum- 10- 00 ...](http:// w ww .frontiers in. org/files/Ar tic les/17 56 55/ f nhum- 10- 00034 -HTML/ i mage_m /fnhum-10 -0 0 034-g0 0 2.jpg)- -- ---bitwize
"I know k u ng fu."

"Show me ."

~~ ~k el v i n0Yup , that one  c rosse d  my min d  a s I  wa s  reading thearticle. Lo o kslike w e' res till a  ways  o f f t his though. 

-- ----
life isstil l good
Th a t is wi thouta d oub t th e  f re aki es t  th i ng  Ih ave  read th is  w eek.
(Tl : d r - th eyreco rdedtrans-cranial  cu rren t s i n mot or an d wo rk ing m emoryareas  o f experts landi ng a  plane an d r ep lay ed  that or a c ont rol  into n ovice
p i lot sh e a ds . The novices perf eo m e d33% bett er.)
~ ~~ 
c p ncrunchWh ere  doe s it sa y th e yperforme d 33%b et te r? Theon ly men ti onof33% i s :

" the re duced va rianc e  reached stati s tical signifi c an c e  i n  >33 % o f individua l
N- b acktria l scom p aring  DLPF Cs ti m  with DLPFC sham"
wh ich me ans s omething comp letely dif f e r ent. I t hink th i s study mightbe
te rribly ove r blown.
~~~
a dwf
Abos lutely. I ' l l admittonot  ha vin g re ad the actual s tudy ,but say ing  that
3 3%ofpil ots  i mproved i s fairly  m ea ni ng les s. Yo u  could a ls o s ay  th at 67 %  of
pi lots_did n't _  im prove.It m ight  e ve n be  th ecasethat tho se 67%that didn 'ti mpro ve  h ad half  of them
getwo rse. In wh ic h c ase we ' d  have 1/ 3 improve, 1/3 no chang e  and 1/ 3 g et
wo rse.  Or in ot her  words , a boring  avera ge di st rib u t ion t h a tmea ns  absolutel y not hing. .. 

-- ----
33 27
sounds too good tobe true.

~~~ 
Is hKeb a b 
A gre e d. I'm  s c ept i c al.

------
elo ff
Extraor di n ar y claims r e qui re  extrao rdinary  evid e nce, no t a study  with a s am ples i zeof 32, inc luding t he contro l  grou p .I rem ain  super  s kep tical  thatt hestati stical ly  signi fican tresult a ctually implies


------
JorgeGT
On a_side note,_I'm totally stealing the_trick of_making_MATLAB colorbar_axis
white_as in Fig._2
[http://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/175655/fnhum-10-00...](http://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/175655/fnhum-10-00034-HTML/image_m/fnhum-10-00034-g002.jpg)

------
bitwize
"I know kung_fu."

"Show me."

~~~
kelvin0
Yup, that one_crossed my mind_as_I was reading the article. Looks like we're
still a ways off this though.

------
lifeisstillgood
That is_without_a doubt_the_freakiest_thing I have read this_week.

(Tl:dr - they recorded trans-cranial_currents in_motor and working memory
areas of experts landing a_plane_and replayed that_or a control into novice
pilots heads. The novices perfeomed_33% better.)

~~~
cpncrunch
Where does it say they_performed 33% better?_The_only_mention of 33% is:

"the_reduced variance reached statistical significance in_>33% of individual
N-back trials comparing DLPFC_stim with DLPFC sham"

which means something completely_different. I think this study might_be
terribly overblown.

~~~
adwf
Aboslutely. I'll admit to_not having_read the actual study, but_saying that
33% of_pilots improved_is fairly meaningless._You could also say that 67%_of
pilots _didn 't__improve.

It might even be the case_that_those 67% that_didn't_improve_had half_of them
get worse._In_which case_we'd_have 1/3 improve, 1/3 no change_and_1/3 get
worse. Or in other words, a_boring average distribution that_means_absolutely
nothing...

------
3327
sounds too good to_be true.

~~~
IshKebab
Agreed. I'm sceptical.

------
eloff
Extraordinary claims_require extraordinary evidence, not a study_with a_sample
size of_32, including the control group. I remain super skeptical that the
statistically_significant result actually implies