IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0262718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of tDCS on the attentional blink revisited: A statistical evaluation of a replication attempt

Author

Listed:
  • Leon C Reteig
  • Lionel A Newman
  • K Richard Ridderinkhof
  • Heleen A Slagter

Abstract

The attentional blink (AB) phenomenon reveals a bottleneck of human information processing: the second of two targets is often missed when they are presented in rapid succession among distractors. In our previous work, we showed that the size of the AB can be changed by applying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) (London & Slagter, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 33, 756–68, 2021). Although AB size at the group level remained unchanged, the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS were negatively correlated: if a given individual’s AB size decreased from baseline during anodal tDCS, their AB size would increase during cathodal tDCS, and vice versa. Here, we attempted to replicate this finding. We found no group effects of tDCS, as in the original study, but we no longer found a significant negative correlation. We present a series of statistical measures of replication success, all of which confirm that both studies are not in agreement. First, the correlation here is significantly smaller than a conservative estimate of the original correlation. Second, the difference between the correlations is greater than expected due to sampling error, and our data are more consistent with a zero-effect than with the original estimate. Finally, the overall effect when combining both studies is small and not significant. Our findings thus indicate that the effects of lDPLFC-tDCS on the AB are less substantial than observed in our initial study. Although this should be quite a common scenario, null findings can be difficult to interpret and are still under-represented in the brain stimulation and cognitive neuroscience literatures. An important auxiliary goal of this paper is therefore to provide a tutorial for other researchers, to maximize the evidential value from null findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Leon C Reteig & Lionel A Newman & K Richard Ridderinkhof & Heleen A Slagter, 2022. "Effects of tDCS on the attentional blink revisited: A statistical evaluation of a replication attempt," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0262718
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262718
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262718&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0262718?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anli Liu & Mihály Vöröslakos & Greg Kronberg & Simon Henin & Matthew R. Krause & Yu Huang & Alexander Opitz & Ashesh Mehta & Christopher C. Pack & Bart Krekelberg & Antal Berényi & Lucas C. Parra & Lu, 2018. "Immediate neurophysiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Valentin Amrhein & David Trafimow & Sander Greenland, 2019. "Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 262-270, March.
    3. Muradchanian, Jasmine & Hoekstra, Rink & Kiers, Henk & van Ravenzwaaij, Don, 2020. "How Best to Quantify Replication Success? A Simulation Study on the Comparison of Replication Success Metrics," MetaArXiv wvdjf, Center for Open Science.
    4. Larry V. Hedges & Jacob M. Schauer, 2019. "More Than One Replication Study Is Needed for Unambiguous Tests of Replication," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(5), pages 543-570, October.
    5. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    6. Martin E Héroux & Colleen K Loo & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2017. "Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    3. Patrick Vu, 2022. "Can the Replication Rate Tell Us About Publication Bias?," Papers 2206.15023, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    4. Vitor Azevedo & Christopher Hoegner, 2023. "Enhancing stock market anomalies with machine learning," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 195-230, January.
    5. Wang, Feipeng & Wong, Wing-Keung & Wang, Zheng & Albasher, Gadah & Alsultan, Nouf & Fatemah, Ambreen, 2023. "Emerging pathways to sustainable economic development: An interdisciplinary exploration of resource efficiency, technological innovation, and ecosystem resilience in resource-rich regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    6. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working Papers 2020-128, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    7. Christian Heise & Joshua M. Pearce, 2020. "From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    8. Oliver Braganza, 2020. "A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Bobtcheff, Catherine & Levy, Raphaël & Mariotti, Thomas, 2021. "Negative results in science: Blessing or (winner's) curse ?," CEPR Discussion Papers 16024, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. G. Christopher Crawford & Vitaliy Skorodziyevskiy & Casey J. Frid & Thomas E. Nelson & Zahra Booyavi & Diana M. Hechavarria & Xuanye Li & Paul D. Reynolds & Ehsan Teymourian, 2022. "Advancing Entrepreneurship Theory Through Replication: A Case Study on Contemporary Methodological Challenges, Future Best Practices, and an Entreaty for Communality," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(3), pages 779-799, May.
    11. Mei Tian & Yan Su & Xin Ru, 2016. "Perish or Publish in China: Pressures on Young Chinese Scholars to Publish in Internationally Indexed Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, April.
    12. Freuli, Francesca & Held, Leonhard & Heyard, Rachel, 2022. "Replication Success under Questionable Research Practices - A Simulation Study," I4R Discussion Paper Series 2, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    13. Weziak-Bialowolska, Dorota & Lee, Matthew T. & Cowden, Richard G. & Bialowolski, Piotr & Chen, Ying & VanderWeele, Tyler J. & McNeely, Eileen, 2023. "Psychological caring climate at work, mental health, well-being, and work-related outcomes: Evidence from a longitudinal study and health insurance data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    14. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Pierre J C Chuard & Milan Vrtílek & Megan L Head & Michael D Jennions, 2019. "Evidence that nonsignificant results are sometimes preferred: Reverse P-hacking or selective reporting?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-7, January.
    16. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    17. Beecham, Roger & Lovelace, Robin, 2022. "A framework for inserting visually-supported inferences into geographical analysis workflow: application to road safety research," OSF Preprints mfja8, Center for Open Science.
    18. Jakub Bijak, 2019. "Editorial: P-values, theory, replicability, and rigour," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 41(32), pages 949-952.
    19. Sommet, Nicolas & Weissman, David Laurence & Cheutin, Nicolas & Elliot, Andrew, 2022. "How many participants do i need to test an interaction? Conducting an appropriate power analysis and achieving sufficient power to detect an interaction," OSF Preprints xhe3u, Center for Open Science.
    20. Austin Chia & Margaret L. Kern, 2021. "Subjective Wellbeing and the Social Responsibilities of Business: an Exploratory Investigation of Australian Perspectives," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 1881-1908, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0262718. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.