Two quick points.
One, I wish we publicized and kept track of just how advocating for open science and especially replications impacts one's career. My personal experience & observation of students and ECRs working with me: it's very difficult. Challenges in every step.

A start could be to centralise the paradigms and data produced in #aphantasia research, taking advantage of the fact that the field is still small. While I'm at it, I suppose I can use this as a bottle to the sea. So if you're more interested in methods and data than “significant" stats... So am I.

... Whereas I find so many studies with inspiring ideas and useful data unpublished and unshared because without clear effects, scattered and hidden in theses, proceedings, etc. which means that every new researcher with these ideas has to reinvent the wheel, even in our "small" field.

... In the hope that outside analysts will pick up on them and reveal unexpected new patterns, or simply that others will be inspired to build on and extend our ideas. The use of OSF is increasing widespread in cog science / psychology, but I find so few well-documented data sets on aphantasia...

As a PhD student, I'm nowhere near influential enough to encourage several labs to pool their data, but as a data science enthusiast, I dream of everyone in the field giving much more importance to their data (even those that fall victim to the "file drawer" effect), documenting and sharing them...

On est passé de "régulation de l'enseignement supérieur privé" à "modernisation de l'enseignement supérieur"...

Le projet a été envoyé à @newstankeduc.bsky.social et @aefsuprecherche.bsky.social, mais je n'ai pas réussi à le trouver sur les sites institutionnels.

Ca ne sent pas bon du tout.

(And like, why are we still measuring researchers' productivity using number of outputs? I do not publish much but because I want to be reliable, replicable, and thoughtful. That's necessarily going to be slower but my work ends up in a "better" journal and being cited a little more.)

So if you can find that you can discriminate blue-seers from red-seers based on a determinable ground truth (e.g. brain response to red & blue stimuli), then this is meaningful. But what you -cannot- do is using people's brain patterns as an "objective" alternative to their self-report.

Congrats for the paper, and thank you so much for the use of the colourblind-friendly Okabe-Ito colour palette - your figures are beautiful

👀