English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Neuroscientists frequently use a certain statistical reasoning to establishthe existence of distinct neuronal processes in the brain. We show that thisreasoning is flawed and that the large corresponding literature needsreconsideration. We illustrate the fallacy with a recent study that received anenormous press coverage because it concluded that humans detect deceit betterif they use unconscious processes instead of conscious deliberations. The studywas published under a new open-data policy that enabled us to reanalyze thedata with more appropriate methods. We found that unconscious performance wasclose to chance - just as the conscious performance. This illustrates the flawsof this widely used statistical reasoning, the benefits of open-data practices,and the need for careful reconsideration of studies using the same rationale.

Unconscious lie detection as an example of a widespread fallacy in the Neurosciences