ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Impact of ERP Reliability Cutoffs on Sample Characteristics and Effect Sizes: Performance-Monitoring ERPs in Psychosis and Healthy Controls.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. 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.
- Beyond classical metrics: Generalizability theory across psychophysiological modalities.International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology · 2026Review
- Distress Intolerance Is Associated With a Greater Reward Positivity to Aversive Avoidance Feedback.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Enhancing generalizability theory with mixed-effects models for heteroscedasticity in psychological measurement: A theoretical introduction with an application from EEG data.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2026Article
- Translating neurophysiological biomarkers into clinical tools: A psychometric blueprint illustrated with the error-related negativity.The American psychologist · 2025Review
- Spouse support and stress: gender differences in neural measures of performance monitoring under observation of a spouse.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In studies of event-related brain potentials (ERPs), it is common practice to exclude participants for having too few trials for analysis to ensure adequate score reliability (i.e., internal consistency). However, in research involving clinical samples, the impact of increasingly rigorous reliability standards on factors such as sample generalizability, patient versus control effect sizes, and effect sizes for within-group correlations with external variables is unclear. This study systematically evaluated whether different ERP reliability cutoffs impacted these factors in psychosis. Error-related negativity (ERN) and error positivity (Pe) were assessed during a modified flanker task in 97 patients with psychosis and 104 healthy comparison participants, who also completed measures of cognition and psychiatric symptoms. ERP reliability cutoffs had notably different effects on the factors considered. A recommended reliability cutoff of 0.80 resulted in sample bias due to systematic exclusion of patients with relatively few task errors, lower reported psychiatric symptoms, and higher levels of cognitive functioning. ERP score reliability lower than 0.80 resulted in generally smaller between- and within-group effect sizes, likely misrepresenting effect sizes. Imposing rigorous ERP reliability standards in studies of psychotic disorders might exclude high-functioning patients, which raises important considerations for the generalizability of clinical ERP research. Moving forward, we recommend examining characteristics of excluded participants, optimizing paradigms and processing pipelines for use in clinical samples, justifying reliability thresholds, and routinely reporting score reliability of all measurements, ERP or otherwise, used to examine individual differences, especially in clinical 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.