Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39285141›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

A standardized framework to test event-based experiments.

Alex Lepauvre, Rony Hirschhorn, Katarina Bendtz, Liad Mudrik, Lucia Melloni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Alex LepauvreNeural Circuits, Consciousness and Cognition Research Group, Max Planck Institute of Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. alex.lepauvre@ae.mpg.de.ORCID 0000-0002-4191-1578
Rony HirschhornSagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-7710-5159
Katarina BendtzBoston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8262-3652
Liad MudrikSagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-3564-6445
Lucia MelloniNeural Circuits, Consciousness and Cognition Research Group, Max Planck Institute of Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8743-5071

Funding

TWCF TWCF0389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The replication crisis in experimental psychology and neuroscience has received much attention recently. This has led to wide acceptance of measures to improve scientific practices, such as preregistration and registered reports. Less effort has been devoted to performing and reporting the results of systematic tests of the functioning of the experimental setup itself. Yet, inaccuracies in the performance of the experimental setup may affect the results of a study, lead to replication failures, and importantly, impede the ability to integrate results across studies. Prompted by challenges we experienced when deploying studies across six laboratories collecting electroencephalography (EEG)/magnetoencephalography (MEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and intracranial EEG (iEEG), here we describe a framework for both testing and reporting the performance of the experimental setup. In addition, 100 researchers were surveyed to provide a snapshot of current common practices and community standards concerning testing in published experiments' setups. Most researchers reported testing their experimental setups. Almost none, however, published the tests performed or their results. Tests were diverse, targeting different aspects of the setup. Through simulations, we clearly demonstrate how even slight inaccuracies can impact the final results. We end with a standardized, open-source, step-by-step protocol for testing (visual) event-related experiments, shared via protocols.io. The protocol aims to provide researchers with a benchmark for future replications and insights into the research quality to help improve the reproducibility of results, accelerate multicenter studies, increase robustness, and enable integration across studies.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyMagnetic Resonance ImagingResearch DesignHumansMagnetoencephalographyNeurosciencesPsychology, ExperimentalReproducibility of ResultsExperimental methodsPre-acquisition testsReplication

Identifiers

PMID39285141
PMCPMC11525435

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.