↓ Skip to main content

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
20 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrizio E. Tressoldi

Abstract

Starting from the famous phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," we will present the evidence supporting the concept that human visual perception may have non-local properties, in other words, that it may operate beyond the space and time constraints of sensory organs, in order to discuss which criteria can be used to define evidence as extraordinary. This evidence has been obtained from seven databases which are related to six different protocols used to test the reality and the functioning of non-local perception, analyzed using both a frequentist and a new Bayesian meta-analysis statistical procedure. According to a frequentist meta-analysis, the null hypothesis can be rejected for all six protocols even if the effect sizes range from 0.007 to 0.28. According to Bayesian meta-analysis, the Bayes factors provides strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis (H1) over the null hypothesis (H0), but only for three out of the six protocols. We will discuss whether quantitative psychology can contribute to defining the criteria for the acceptance of new scientific ideas in order to avoid the inconclusive controversies between supporters and opponents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Professor 9 17%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 9 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 189. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2023.
All research outputs
#200,856
of 24,639,073 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#418
of 33,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#776
of 190,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#4
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,639,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.