ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2021
Toward Cumulative Cognitive Science: A Comparison of Meta-Analysis, Mega-Analysis, and Hybrid Approaches.
Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinically effective child change in family-based behavioral treatment for pediatric obesity: An individual participant mega-analysis.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026Pooled it
- Perceptual and conceptual novelty independently guide infant looking behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
- Continental Patterns of Phenotypic Variation Along Replicated Urban Gradients: A Mega-Analysis.Ecology letters · 2025Review
- Article
- Constructing and exploring neuroimaging projects: a survey from clinical practice to scientific research.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Time reference in aphasia: are there differences between tenses and aphasia fluency type? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Route effects in city-based survey knowledge estimates.Cognitive processing · 2023Article
- Anchored in the present: preschoolers more accurately infer their futures when confronted with their pasts.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- iCatcher+: Robust and Automated Annotation of Infants' and Young Children's Gaze Behavior From Videos Collected in Laboratory, Field, and Online Studies.Advances in methods and practices in psychological scienceArticle
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
There is increasing interest in cumulative approaches to science, in which instead of analyzing the results of individual papers separately, we integrate information qualitatively or quantitatively. One such approach is meta-analysis, which has over 50 years of literature supporting its usefulness, and is becoming more common in cognitive science. However, changes in technical possibilities by the widespread use of Python and R make it easier to fit more complex models, and even simulate missing data. Here we recommend the use of mega-analyses (based on the aggregation of data sets collected by independent researchers) and hybrid meta- mega-analytic approaches, for cases where raw data are available for some studies. We illustrate the three approaches using a rich test-retest data set of infants' speech processing as well as synthetic data. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of the three approaches from the viewpoint of a cognitive scientist contemplating their use, and limitations of this article, to be addressed 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.