Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33737245›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Statistical power: Implications for planning MEG studies.

Maximilien Chaumon, Aina Puce, Nathalie George

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Maximilien ChaumonInstitut du Cerveau, ICM, Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Université, Centre MEG-EEG, Centre de NeuroImagerie Recherche (CENIR), 47 Boulevard de l'hôpital, 75013 Paris, France. Electronic address: maximilien.chaumon@icm-institute.org.
Aina PuceDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Programs in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Indiana University, 1101 East 10th St, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States.
Nathalie GeorgeInstitut du Cerveau, ICM, Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Université, Centre MEG-EEG, Centre de NeuroImagerie Recherche (CENIR), 47 Boulevard de l'hôpital, 75013 Paris, France.

Funding

CRCNS: US-France Data Sharing Proposal: Open science & cloud computing of MEEGR01EB030896 · NIBIB · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI PESTILLI, FRANCO, PUCE, AINA · 2020 to 2022
$651k
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB030896
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical power is key for robust, replicable science. Here, we systematically explored how numbers of trials and subjects affect statistical power in MEG sensor-level data. More specifically, we simulated "experiments" using the MEG resting-state dataset of the Human Connectome Project (HCP). We divided the data in two conditions, injected a dipolar source at a known anatomical location in the "signal condition", but not in the "noise condition", and detected significant differences at sensor level with classical paired t-tests across subjects, using amplitude, squared amplitude, and global field power (GFP) measures. Group-level detectability of these simulated effects varied drastically with anatomical origin. We thus examined in detail which spatial properties of the sources affected detectability, looking specifically at the distance from closest sensor and orientation of the source, and at the variability of these parameters across subjects. In line with previous single-subject studies, we found that the most detectable effects originate from source locations that are closest to the sensors and oriented tangentially with respect to the head surface. In addition, cross-subject variability in orientation also affected group-level detectability, boosting detection in regions where this variability was small and hindering detection in regions where it was large. Incidentally, we observed a considerable covariation of source position, orientation, and their cross-subject variability in individual brain anatomical space, making it difficult to assess the impact of each of these variables independently of one another. We thus also performed simulations where we controlled spatial properties independently of individual anatomy. These additional simulations confirmed the strong impact of distance and orientation and further showed that orientation variability across subjects affects detectability, whereas position variability does not. Importantly, our study indicates that strict unequivocal recommendations as to the ideal number of trials and subjects for any experiment cannot be realistically provided for neurophysiological studies and should be adapted according to the brain regions under study.

Indexed as

BrainBrain MappingConnectomeElectroencephalographyHumansMagnetoencephalographyMonte Carlo MethodDistanceMEGOrientationSimulationSource modelingStatistical power

Identifiers

PMID33737245
PMCPMC8148377

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.