The conference was called MRI Together: A global workshop on Open Science and Reproducible MR Research. Talks were by:
It was a privilege to be included with these thoughtful colleagues. Enjoy the videos.
The conference was called MRI Together: A global workshop on Open Science and Reproducible MR Research. Talks were by:
It was a privilege to be included with these thoughtful colleagues. Enjoy the videos.
Since nobody has commented, I’ll stick my neck out there. I haven’t viewed any of the videos, so I am sure my question is answered – and I think this is a great resource. But, frankly I don’t know what MRI stands for, nor what MR stands for. Looking over the conference materials I haven’t seen a single place that either acronym is spelled out. I’m quite sure if I watch a few videos, I’ll find out, but it irks me that the acronym is so well known that there is no need to use words. I mean, it’s not NHST or MRP or ANOVA or AI or…..
Makes me feel stupid starting out this day. I must have no imagination since I keep drawing blanks.
I think it’s Magnetic Resonance Imaging
I didn’t think of that. But then the title seems strange – referring to “MR research” rather than “MRI research.”
I’m feeling a bit less stupid now since nobody appears to have shed any light on what MRI Together stands for (and, no, I don’t think it is Magnetic Resonance Imaging). I even watched a bit of all the videos – all talking about issues I am familiar with (reproducibility, NHST, p values, etc.) but I did not hear any body say what the MRI stands for. Please….someone….clear up the mystery!
Just watched some of one of the videos. It’s funny how long you can go without knowing for sure what they’re referring to (although it all makes sense with the assumption it’s magnetic resonance imaging).
But for sure it’s maganetic resonance imaging – confirmed with one slide which refernces dMRI (Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging).
The workshop was organized by the ESMRMB which is the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology.
Thank you Joshua and Erik. Did any of the talks touch upon issues of reproducibility specific to MRI research? I’m sure all the general issues apply, but I’d like to know whether there are specific issues that arise with MRI research.
The one I watched part of had some elements specific to imaging – but it was interesting was how most of it generalized to reproducibility (and statistical issues) across domains.
Look up the MRI salmon.
You’ve got the emotions of a fish.
(I always wanted an excuse to use that line.)
(And the thirteen clocks is even better than I remembered! https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1478/47/1478478341444.pdf)
One thing striking about pretty much all the talks is that it is very hard to say something new about this topic. There wasn’t a moment when I thought, wow, I didn’t know that. This has been going on since the 1950s at least, probably even earlier. Is there any reason why anyone can effect change today when Meehl and others had basically zero impact? Is there even any point talking about all this?
Hey you get to give talks, publish papers and have a flourishing academic career ;-)
Same old same old dodge when you are unable or unwilling to do profitable research.
Change needs to come from the wider society through governments, universities and legislation.
I started writing similar articles because journals like the Journal of Memory and Language were rejecting my students’ papers because they “didn’t provide closure”. I then published some papers in JML to make these old points again. But nothing has changed. Maybe I should just give up and publish in other venues. I think it’s a waste of time to try to clean up ideas in people’s minds. What they believe is what they will always believe (about p-values etc).
I haven’t listened to the lecture, but this just published report in Nature might be of interest to this audience:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360301621032600