Reply to: Evaluating the role of the cerebellum in temporal processing: beware of the null hypothesis

Abstract

Reply by the current author to the comments made by Richard B. Ivry and Rebecca M.C. Spencer (see record 200416962-009) on the original article (2004). Ivry and Spencer take issue with the interpretation of the pattern of temporal processing performance in cerebellar patients on several grounds. First, they maintain there is broad support for the cerebellar timing model because the cerebellum also plays a role in other tasks that appear to involve timing. Although we agree that evidence for a brain region's role in regulating timing should come from a wide range of tasks, we would add that there needs to be evidence that explicit timing is engaged by those tasks. Ivry and Spencer's main critique is that it is premature to accept the null hypothesis on the basis of a 'marginally significant result' that is not in accord with previous findings. The cerebellum's function in behaviour has long been debated because it plays a role in a wide range of tasks, many of which have no apparent explicit timing requirements. Our results in patients with chronic unilateral cerebellar stroke may not be due simply to recovery or reorganization of function, but also relate to the cerebellum's role in behaviour. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)