ArticleNature human behaviour2026
Addressing low statistical power in computational modelling studies in psychology and neuroscience.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Inferring the causes of noise from binary outcomes: A normative theory of learning under uncertainty.Psychological review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Computational modelling is a powerful tool for uncovering hidden processes in observed data, yet it faces underappreciated challenges. Among these, determining appropriate sample sizes for computational studies remains a critical but overlooked issue, particularly for model selection analyses. Here we introduce a power analysis framework for Bayesian model selection, a method widely used to choose the best model among alternatives. Our framework reveals that while power increases with sample size, it decreases as more models are considered. Using this framework, we empirically demonstrate that psychology and human neuroscience studies often suffer from low statistical power in model selection. A total of 41 of 52 studies reviewed had less than 80% probability of correctly identifying the true model. The field also heavily relies on fixed effects model selection, which we demonstrate has serious statistical issues, including high false positive rates and pronounced sensitivity to outliers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.