2 ms·

I call bullshit. The original paper is not bad as the article though, they call for replication for instance - "In view of the gravity of the subject matter (

I call bullshit. The original paper is not bad as the article though, they call for replication for instance - "In view of the gravity of the subject matter (i.e., establishing communication with nonverbal, completely paralyzed persons with preserved cognition), a call for replication of the current results by other investigators would be welcome. "

aaron695 10y ago
What I find interesting is this is a known scammy field. HN is Reddit+ I wonder if there is a good opportunity for HN+ (Or is there already?)
- omginternets 10y ago
  >known scammy field It really isn't, though. It's not a scam to publish with a p>.05 standard and get false positives. It just means you need to take studies with a grain of salt. Note that this is a replication of a similar technique used in fMRI, but this time in a different modality (=> different signal space). [See Owen, 2012]. Unless you think the academic field of machine-learning is a "scam", then this is starting to look somewhat credible. It's getting interesting, let's say.