ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
What over 1,000,000 participants tell us about online research protocols.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conceptual but not perceptual encoding leads to age differences in priming.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Measuring executive functions online: Interactive effects of experimenter presence, instruction feedback, session order, and task difficulty.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Greater fatigue is more strongly associated with reduced reward sensitivity in the long-term phase of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) than in the early phase.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Article
- Reliable Web-Based Auditory Cognitive Testing: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Pregnancy, Birth, and Mental Health Outcomes Associated With Recent Reproductive Coercion and Intimate Partner Violence in a Crowd-Sourced National Sample.Journal of midwifery & women's healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the ever-increasing adoption of tools for online research, for the first time we have visibility on macro-level trends in research that were previously unattainable. However, until now this data has been siloed within company databases and unavailable to researchers. Between them, the online study creation and hosting tool Gorilla Experiment Builder and the recruitment platform Prolific hold metadata gleaned from millions of participants and over half a million studies. We analyzed a subset of this data (over 1 million participants and half a million studies) to reveal critical information about the current state of the online research landscape that researchers can use to inform their own study planning and execution. We analyzed this data to discover basic benchmarking statistics about online research that all researchers conducting their work online may be interested to know. In doing so, we identified insights related to: the typical study length, average completion rates within studies, the most frequent sample sizes, the most popular participant filters, and gross participant activity levels. We present this data in the hope that it can be used to inform research choices going forward and provide a snapshot of the current state of online research.
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.