Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32759026›Full record

ReviewDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2020

Improving practices and inferences in developmental cognitive neuroscience.

John C Flournoy, Nandita Vijayakumar, Theresa W Cheng, Danielle Cosme, Jessica E Flannery, Jennifer H Pfeifer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Task-based fMRI Studies in Youths With Irritability.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. A multiverse analysis of the logical memory test and plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

6 authors.

John C FlournoyDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States; Department of Psychology, Harvard University, United States.
Nandita VijayakumarDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States; School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia.
Theresa W ChengDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States.
Danielle CosmeDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States; Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, United States.
Jessica E FlanneryDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States.
Jennifer H PfeiferDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, United States. Electronic address: jpfeifer@uoregon.edu.

Funding

Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute TL1 ProgramTL1TR002371 · NCATS · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ALLISON Deborah FRYER, JESSINA C MCGREGOR · 2017 to 2026
$6.2M
Puberty, neural systems for social processes, and early adolescent mental health: A longitudinal neuroimaging studyR01MH107418 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI PFEIFER, JENNIFER HOPE · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002371NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH107418
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The past decade has seen growing concern about research practices in cognitive neuroscience, and psychology more broadly, that shake our confidence in many inferences in these fields. We consider how these issues affect developmental cognitive neuroscience, with the goal of progressing our field to support strong and defensible inferences from our neurobiological data. This manuscript focuses on the importance of distinguishing between confirmatory versus exploratory data analysis approaches in developmental cognitive neuroscience. Regarding confirmatory research, we discuss problems with analytic flexibility, appropriately instantiating hypotheses, and controlling the error rate given how we threshold data and correct for multiple comparisons. To counterbalance these concerns with confirmatory analyses, we present two complementary strategies. First, we discuss the advantages of working within an exploratory analysis framework, including estimating and reporting effect sizes, using parcellations, and conducting specification curve analyses. Second, we summarize defensible approaches for null hypothesis significance testing in confirmatory analyses, focusing on transparent and reproducible practices in our field. Specific recommendations are given, and templates, scripts, or other resources are hyperlinked, whenever possible.

Indexed as

Cognitive NeuroscienceHumansResearch DesignExploratoryInferenceParcellationsPreregistrationReproducibilityThresholding

Identifiers

PMID32759026
PMCPMC7403881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.