LLN, le 1/02/05
Hi Matthew and All,
>A passes significance at p=0.05, B doesn't p=0.04. It could very
>easily be that B has even has a higher effect size than A. It seems
>to me very misleading to report 'A is significant' without 'B is
>very close to A'.
Sure, but in such a case, I wouldn't accept any inference about "A
vs. B" without a specific test. Which brings us back to square one:
How can we assess differences across areas rather (or in addition to)
differences across conditions/design?
>The continuous map provides this information in a rather compact way.
If you think that the continuous map gives such a diagnosis, then,
fine for me. But I must admit that this is not that clear to me when
looking at your image. What should we conclude from such a
representation? Can we go further than simply stating something like
"Everything close to red(blue) shades does probably not differ"
(which, I agree, is not that bad compared to the current situation) ?
Yours,
Mauro.
--
_____________________________________
Help fighting hunger: http://www.hungersite.com
Just click your mouse and sponsors of The Hunger Site donate a
serving of food to a person in need - at no cost to you.
______________________________________
Mauro PESENTI
Research Associate, National Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium)
Unite de Neurosciences Cognitives
Departement de Psychologie
Universite Catholique de Louvain
Place Cardinal Mercier, 10
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
tel.: +32 (0)10 47 88 22
fax: +32 (0)10 47 37 74
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.nesc.ucl.ac.be
http://www.nesc.ucl.ac.be/mp/pesentiHomepage.htm
|