>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 studie

>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.