ArticlePsychophysiology2023
Temporal dynamics of emotional processing: Parsing trial-wise variance of the late positive potential using Generalizability Theory.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond classical metrics: Generalizability theory across psychophysiological modalities.International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology · 2026Review
- Mapping the Digital Mind: A Meta-Analysis of EEG Biomarkers in Cognition, Emotion, and Mental Health.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Anxiety Sensitivity and Intolerance of Uncertainty Uniquely Explain the Association of the Late Positive Potential With Generalized Anxiety Disorder Symptoms.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Neural reactivity to infant emotion cues during pregnancy: Associations with peripartum anxiety and depressive symptoms.Biological psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The reliability of individual trial event-related potential (ERP) components extracted from electroencephalogram has been consistently questioned since ERP research began. This ambivalence is based on misunderstood assumptions stemming from Cronbach and Classical Test Theory. Contemporary methods allow for the reliability of individual ERP trials to be estimated and for analyses of these trial-level ERP components to be meaningfully parsed. We illustrate the use of Generalizability Theory procedures in estimating the reliability of trial-level ERPs using the late positive potential (LPP), a neural measure of motivated attention toward emotionally evocative stimuli. Individuals (N = 88) completed a passive viewing task while continuous EEG was recorded. Variability in trial-level LPP responses was decomposed into facets corresponding to individual differences, chronological trial within block, stimulus type, their two-way interactions, and specific stimuli. We estimated various reliability coefficients and found that both overall and category-specific person-level LPP estimates have good-to-excellent reliability, while the reliability of within-person differences (i.e., change) between arousal categories was fair for the early LPP. These results were generally consistent across time windows, but were highest early in the LPP time course. We argue that investigating reliability using trial-level data allows researchers to pursue hypotheses focused on neurophysiological dynamics that unfold over the course of an experiment and not risk false inferences (i.e., ecological fallacy) when using person-level aggregates to deduce such processes. Moreover, such analyses provide information that allows researchers to optimize their protocols by potentially reducing the number of individual trials, burden on participants, and cost, while retaining sufficient reliability.
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.