Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40568458›Full record

ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2023

Successful reproduction of a large EEG study across software packages.

Aya Kabbara, Nina Forde, Camille Maumet, Mahmoud Hassan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Alpha rhythm and Alzheimer's disease: Has Hans Berger's dream come true?Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Aya KabbaraLASeR - Lebanese Association for Scientific Research, Tripoli, Lebanon.
Nina FordeInria, Univ Rennes, CNRS, Inserm, IRISA UMR 6074, Empenn ERL U 1228, Rennes, France.
Camille MaumetInria, Univ Rennes, CNRS, Inserm, IRISA UMR 6074, Empenn ERL U 1228, Rennes, France.
Mahmoud HassanMINDig, F-35000, Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As an active field of research and with the development of state-of-the-art algorithms to analyze EEG datasets, the parametrization of Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis workflows has become increasingly flexible and complex, with a great variety of methodological options and tools to be selected at each step. This high analytical flexibility can be problematic as it can yield to variability in research outcomes. Therefore, growing attention has been recently paid to understand the potential impact of different methodological decisions on the reproducibility of results. In this paper, we aim to examine how sensitive the results of EEG analyses are to variations in preprocessing with different software tools. We reanalyzed the shared EEG data (N = 500) from (Williams et al., 2021) using three of the most commonly used open-source Matlab-based EEG software tools: EEGLAB, Brainstorm and FieldTrip. After reproducing the same original preprocessing workflow in each software, the resulting event-related potentials (ERPs) were qualitatively and quantitatively compared in order to examine the degree of consistency/discrepancy between software packages. Our findings show a good degree of convergence in terms of the general profile of ERP waveforms, peak latencies and effect size estimates related to specific signal features. However, considerable variability was also observed in the magnitude of the absolute voltage observed with each software package as reflected by the similarity values and observed statistical differences at particular channels and time instants. In conclusion, we believe that this study provides valuable clues to better understand the impact of the software tool on the analysis of EEG results.

Indexed as

EEG preprocessingElectroencephalographyInter-software variabilityReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID40568458
PMCPMC12172740

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.