” Yet, bar

plots are also commonly used in scenarios in which the distance from zero is not meaningful and in which distributional information would be of great benefit to readers. In roughly the same amount of space required by a bar plot, one can portray the full shape of distributions and overlay descriptive statistics, inferential statistics related to hypothesis testing, or even individual data points, creating a so-called “bean plot” (Kampstra, 2008). By increasing the amount of information available to the viewers, we allow them to assess the appropriateness selleck compound of related statistical analyses and make their own inferences. In Figure 3, we apply the guiding principle of “show more, hide less” to high-dimensional electroencephalographic (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data sets. We portray the results using a common design (panel A) and a modified design (panel B), in which each change is arrived Crizotinib order at by following the guidelines in Table 1. Figures 3Aa and 3Ba present data from an EEG visual flanker task. Subjects were asked to indicate the direction of a visual target which appeared

shortly after the presentation of flanking distracters. For each participant, multichannel EEG time series were decomposed using independent component analysis, and a single component best matching the expected frontocentral topography for a performance monitoring process was selected for further analysis (Eichele et al., 2010). Here, we

ask how the extracted event-related potential (ERP) differs according to the subject’s response (i.e., correct or incorrect). Panel A provides a typical portrayal of results, in which mean ERPs are displayed Casein kinase 1 for each condition. As Table 1 recommends, the axes are labeled, variable units are indicated, and experimental conditions are distinguished by line color with direct annotation on the plot. While this panel is clear, it is not complete: there is no portrayal of uncertainty. In panel B, we add 95% confidence bands around the average ERPs. The confidence bands are made slightly transparent to highlight overlap between conditions and to maintain the visual prominence of the means. Confidence intervals clarify that there is greater uncertainty in the error response than the correct response (because subjects make few errors) and that there is insufficient evidence to conclude a response difference after ∼800 ms. In panel B, we also add verbal descriptions and additional annotation to the graphic (Lane and Sándor, 2009 and Tufte, 2001). Labels indicate that the timeline is relative to the presentation of the target stimulus and specify our null and alternative hypotheses as well as the alpha level (type I error rate) chosen to determine statistical significance. Integrating descriptions into the figure (rather than the legend) discourages misinterpretation and permits readers to understand the display more quickly.