Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32673043›Full record

ArticlePsychological methods2021

Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience.

Daniel H Baker, Greta Vilidaite, Freya A Lygo, Anika K Smith, Tessa R Flack, André D Gouws, Timothy J Andrews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

111 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Editorial Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

51 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

7 authors.

Daniel H BakerDepartment of Psychology, University of York.ORCID 0000-0002-0161-443X
Greta VilidaiteSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton.ORCID 0000-0002-2011-5150
Freya A LygoDepartment of Psychology, University of York.ORCID 0000-0002-8043-4866
Anika K SmithDepartment of Psychology, University of York.ORCID 0000-0003-4584-5501
Tessa R FlackSchool of Psychology, University of York.ORCID 0000-0002-4115-4466
André D GouwsYork Neuroimaging Centre, University of York.ORCID 0000-0003-0674-7829
Timothy J AndrewsDepartment of Psychology, University of York.ORCID 0000-0001-8255-9120

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H008217/1U.K. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilU.K. Medical Research CouncilUniversity of CambridgeWellcome Trust 105624
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When designing experimental studies with human participants, experimenters must decide how many trials each participant will complete, as well as how many participants to test. Most discussion of statistical power (the ability of a study design to detect an effect) has focused on sample size, and assumed sufficient trials. Here we explore the influence of both factors on statistical power, represented as a 2-dimensional plot on which iso-power contours can be visualized. We demonstrate the conditions under which the number of trials is particularly important, that is, when the within-participant variance is large relative to the between-participants variance. We then derive power contour plots using existing data sets for 8 experimental paradigms and methodologies (including reaction times, sensory thresholds, fMRI, MEG, and EEG), and provide example code to calculate estimates of the within- and between-participants variance for each method. In all cases, the within-participant variance was larger than the between-participants variance, meaning that the number of trials has a meaningful influence on statistical power in commonly used paradigms. An online tool is provided (https://shiny.york.ac.uk/powercontours/) for generating power contours, from which the optimal combination of trials and participants can be calculated when designing future studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Psychology, ExperimentalHumansResearch DesignSample Size

Identifiers

PMID32673043
PMCPMC8329985

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.