Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33569785›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2021

Estimating the statistical power to detect set-size effects in contralateral delay activity.

William X Q Ngiam, Kirsten C S Adam, Colin Quirk, Edward K Vogel, Edward Awh

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Selective removal of visual working memory items at test.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Rhythms in cognition: The evidence revisited.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William X Q NgiamDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3567-3881
Kirsten C S AdamDepartment of Psychology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4950-327X
Colin QuirkDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3185-3984
Edward K VogelDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Edward AwhDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
University of Chicago · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

The Distinction Between Number and Resolution in Visual Working MemoryR01MH087214 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI AWH, EDWARD, VOGEL, EDWARD K · 2009 to 2023
$11.0M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH087214NIMH NIH HHS R01MH087214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contralateral delay activity (CDA) is an event-related potential component commonly used to examine the online processes of visual working memory. Here, we provide a robust analysis of the statistical power that is needed to achieve reliable and reproducible results with the CDA. Using two very large EEG datasets that examined the contrast between CDA amplitude with set sizes 2 and 6 items and set sizes 2 and 4 items, we present a subsampling analysis that estimates the statistical power achieved with varying numbers of subjects and trials based on the proportion of significant tests in 10,000 iterations. We also generated simulated data using Bayesian multilevel modeling to estimate power beyond the bounds of the original datasets. The number of trials and subjects required depends critically on the effect size. Detecting the presence of the CDA-a reliable difference between contralateral and ipsilateral electrodes during the memory period-required only 30-50 clean trials with a sample of 25 subjects to achieve approximately 80% statistical power. However, for detecting a difference in CDA amplitude between two set sizes, a substantially larger number of trials and subjects were required; approximately 400 clean trials with 25 subjects to achieve 80% power. Thus, to achieve robust tests of how CDA activity differs across conditions, it is essential to be mindful of the estimated effect size. We recommend researchers designing experiments to detect set-size differences in the CDA collect substantially more trials per subject.

Indexed as

Statistics as TopicBayes TheoremComputer SimulationElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFunctional LateralityHumansMemory, Short-TermMultilevel AnalysisSample SizeVisual Perceptioncontralateral delay activityEEGERPsstatistical powervisual working memory

Identifiers

PMID33569785
PMCPMC8084110
OpenAlexW3127378316

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.