Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34374003›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychology review2022

How to do Better N400 Studies: Reproducibility, Consistency and Adherence to Research Standards in the Existing Literature.

Anđela Šoškić, Vojislav Jovanović, Suzy J Styles, Emily S Kappenman, Vanja Ković

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Attentional Engagement with Target and Distractor Streams Predicts Speech Comprehension in Multitalker Environments.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Discourse Focus and Memory Encoding: The Role of Trial-Level Alpha Power.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

5 authors.

Anđela ŠoškićTeacher Education Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. andjela.soskic@uf.bg.ac.rs.ORCID 0000-0003-0216-989X
Vojislav JovanovićLaboratory for Neurocognition and Applied Cognition, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Suzy J StylesDivision of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3517-9680
Emily S KappenmanDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2789-015X
Vanja KovićLaboratory for Neurocognition and Applied Cognition, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0002-3954-1125

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the complexity of ERP recording and processing pipeline, the resulting variability of methodological options, and the potential for these decisions to influence study outcomes, it is important to understand how ERP studies are conducted in practice and to what extent researchers are transparent about their data collection and analysis procedures. The review gives an overview of methodology reporting in a sample of 132 ERP papers, published between January 1980 - June 2018 in journals included in two large databases: Web of Science and PubMed. Because ERP methodology partly depends on the study design, we focused on a well-established component (the N400) in the most commonly assessed population (healthy neurotypical adults), in one of its most common modalities (visual images). The review provides insights into 73 properties of study design, data pre-processing, measurement, statistics, visualization of results, and references to supplemental information across studies within the same subfield. For each of the examined methodological decisions, the degree of consistency, clarity of reporting and deviations from the guidelines for best practice were examined. Overall, the results show that each study had a unique approach to ERP data recording, processing and analysis, and that at least some details were missing from all papers. In the review, we highlight the most common reporting omissions and deviations from established recommendations, as well as areas in which there was the least consistency. Additionally, we provide guidance for a priori selection of the N400 measurement window and electrode locations based on the results of previous studies.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsAdultFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignERP methodologyEvent related potentialsN400Open sciencePicturesReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID34374003
PMCPMC9381463

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.