Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29266241›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2018

How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? It depends.

Megan A Boudewyn, Steven J Luck, Jaclyn L Farrens, Emily S Kappenman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 128 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
128citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

128 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Influence of acculturation on the ERP correlates of self- and other-referencing.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Neural correlates of asymmetric switch costs during affective task switching.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

68 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Megan A BoudewynImaging Research Center, UC Davis Medical Center, Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Steven J LuckCenter for Mind and Brain, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Jaclyn L FarrensDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA.
Emily S KappenmanDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA.

Funding

ERPLAB: Extensible, open source software for analysis of event-related potentialsR01MH087450 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI LUCK, STEVEN J · 2010 to 2025
$2.7M
Yearly Workshop in the Event-Related Potential TechniqueR25MH080794 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Emily S. Kappenman, STEVEN J LUCK · 2007 to 2026
$2.6M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH087450NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080794
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In designing an ERP study, researchers must choose how many trials to include, balancing the desire to maximize statistical power and the need to minimize the length of the recording session. Recent studies have attempted to quantify the minimum number of trials needed to obtain reliable measures for a variety of ERP components. However, these studies have largely ignored other variables that affect statistical power in ERP studies, including sample size and effect magnitude. The goal of the present study was to determine whether and how the number of trials, number of participants, and effect magnitude interact to influence statistical power, thus providing a better guide for selecting an appropriate number of trials. We used a Monte Carlo approach to measure the probability of obtaining a statistically significant result when testing for (a) the presence of an ERP effect, (b) within-participant condition differences in an ERP effect, and (c) between-participants group differences in an ERP effect. Each of these issues was examined in the context of the error-related negativity and the lateralized readiness potential. We found that doubling the number of trials recommended by previous studies led to more than a doubling of statistical power under many conditions. Thus, when determining the number of trials that should be included in a given study, researchers must consider the sample size, the anticipated effect magnitude, and the noise level, rather than relying solely on general recommendations about the number of trials needed to obtain a "stable" ERP waveform.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAdolescentAdultCerebral CortexElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignSample SizeYoung Adultanalysis/statistical methodsERPs

Identifiers

PMID29266241
PMCPMC5940511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.