ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2021
Overfitting the Literature to One Set of Stimuli and Data.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding object categories from electroencephalography during free viewing reveals early information evolution compared to passive viewing.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- A flexible behavioral method for measuring human and artificial intelligence alignment using representational similarity analysis.iScience · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an AI-generated real-world object stimuli set.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Dynamic Representation of Multidimensional Object Properties in the Human Brain.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Wordsworth: A generative word dataset for comparison of speech representations in humans and neural networks.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Human EEG recordings for 1,854 concepts presented in rapid serial visual presentation streams.Scientific data · 2022Article
- THINGSvision: A Python Toolbox for Streamlining the Extraction of Activations From Deep Neural Networks.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A large number of papers in Computational Cognitive Neuroscience are developing and testing novel analysis methods using one specific neuroimaging dataset and problematic experimental stimuli. Publication bias and confirmatory exploration will result in overfitting to the limited available data. We highlight the problems with this specific dataset and argue for the need to collect more good quality open neuroimaging data using a variety of experimental stimuli, in order to test the generalisability of current published results, and allow for more robust results in future work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.