ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2018
How to Enhance the Power to Detect Brain-Behavior Correlations With Limited Resources.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Active vision is linked to category selectivity in the individual brain.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Does radial bias contribute to fast saccades toward faces in the periphery?Journal of vision · 2025Article
- The role of personality in social interaction perception: an ERP and source imaging study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Individual differences in face salience and rapid face saccades.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Cortical depth profiles in primary visual cortex for illusory and imaginary experiences.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Agreeableness modulates mental state decoding: Electrophysiological evidence.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- The neural correlates of response inhibition across the transition from infancy to toddlerhood: An fNIRS study.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Larval zebrafish as a model for studying individual variability in translational neuroscience research.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Review
- Characteristic fixation biases in Super-Recognizers.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies in Sexual Medicine: A Primer.The journal of sexual medicine · 2022Article
- The influence of familiarity on memory for faces and mask wearing.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- The superior longitudinal fasciculus and its functional triple-network mechanisms in brooding.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuroscience has been diagnosed with a pervasive lack of statistical power and, in turn, reliability. One remedy proposed is a massive increase of typical sample sizes. Parts of the neuroimaging community have embraced this recommendation and actively push for a reallocation of resources toward fewer but larger studies. This is especially true for neuroimaging studies focusing on individual differences to test brain-behavior correlations. Here, I argue for a more efficient solution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.