ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2026
Comparing methods for mass univariate analyses of human EEG: Empirical data and simulations.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heightened Distraction under Competition in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Changes in visuocortical engagement and oscillatory brain activity during associative learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectroencephalography (EEG) is a widely used method for investigating human brain dynamics. However, EEG analyses are frequently conducted with limited a priori knowledge regarding locations or latencies of meaningful statistical effects. This makes it difficult for researchers to form regions of interest (ROIs), which are then analyzed using traditional statistical models such as analysis of variance. To address this, mass univariate analyses have become a valuable complement to ROI-based approaches. These methods attempt to correct for multiple comparisons while mitigating the risk of false positives and false negatives, thus enabling statistical inference in high-dimensional EEG data. NEW
methodHere, we review and evaluate different approaches for delineating spatial and temporal effect boundaries in three datasets. Specifically, we focus on permutation-based approaches and their Bayesian alternatives to address within-subjects condition differences in i) steady-state evoked responses, ii) event-related potentials, and iii) time-frequency data.
resultsOverall, simulation results showed variability in the number of datapoints indicating statistical condition differences. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsCluster-based permutation tests provide a relatively liberal approach to correct for multiple comparisons across domains, with high sensitivity for detecting large effects. In contrast, the permutation-based t
conclusionsThese findings provide insights into the strengths and limitations of current mass univariate approaches with the goal of supporting more informed decision-making in the analysis of EEG data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41274354What 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.