A Critical Look at Presenting Science: Patricia Kuhl

I had the privilege of attending the 2012 McGovern Institute Symposium "MEG: Applications to Cognitive Neuroscience." The symposium covered the breadth and depth of magnetoencephalography (MEG) research. The majority of the talks were brilliantly presented, well-done science. There was one talk, despite being well-received by the audience, which did not live up to rigorous scientific standards.

Patricia Kuhl's talk is rife with scientific peccadilloes. The figure presented at 24:19 is a one of the best examples. The complete absence of error bars is the greatest error of omission. Variance is a critical element in understanding mean differences, and the audience is not given that information and is unable to draw their own conclusions concerning the significance of the mean differences.

In addition to that error of omission, there is an error of commission. Dr. Kuhl drew a straight line between the groups in the graph. She is assuming, with no justification, interval scaling on the x-axis. Why can we assume distance between 6-8 months and 10-12 months is the same as the distance between 10-12 months and "adult"*? When in doubt, a scientist should assume the lowest scale of measurement. It is better to assume ordinal scale when comparing these groups, thus making a bar graph appropriate. Just because you can draw a line between data points does not mean you should.

There needs to be a high standard for the presentation of scientific findings in all contexts. It is the responsibility of fellow scientists to uphold that standard.

* It is unclear what "adult" means in this context. It is a chronological or developmental definition? How was it operationalized?