Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32344671›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2020

Building, Hosting and Recruiting: A Brief Introduction to Running Behavioral Experiments Online.

Marian Sauter, Dejan Draschkow, Wolfgang Mack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
–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

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Testing individual differences in the preparation effect.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Marian SauterInstitute for Psychology, Bundeswehr University Munich, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3123-8073
Dejan DraschkowDepartment of Psychiatry, Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1354-4835
Wolfgang MackInstitute for Psychology, Bundeswehr University Munich, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers have ample reasons to take their experimental studies out of the lab and into the online wilderness. For some, it is out of necessity, due to an unforeseen laboratory closure or difficulties in recruiting on-site participants. Others want to benefit from the large and diverse online population. However, the transition from in-lab to online data acquisition is not trivial and might seem overwhelming at first. To facilitate this transition, we present an overview of actively maintained solutions for the critical components of successful online data acquisition: creating, hosting and recruiting. Our aim is to provide a brief introductory resource and discuss important considerations for researchers who are taking their first steps towards online experimentation.

Indexed as

behavioral sciencesonline experimentsonline methodsremote testing

Identifiers

PMID32344671
PMCPMC7226161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.