Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41274354›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2026

Comparing methods for mass univariate analyses of human EEG: Empirical data and simulations.

Anna-Lena Tebbe, Christian Panitz, Andreas Keil

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anna-Lena TebbeUniversity of Florida, Department of Psychology, Laboratory for Brain, Body, and Behavior, Gainesville, FL, United States. Electronic address: atebbe@ufl.edu.
Christian PanitzUniversity of Bremen, Germany.
Andreas KeilUniversity of Florida, Department of Psychology, Laboratory for Brain, Body, and Behavior, Gainesville, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BrainComputer SimulationElectroencephalographySignal Processing, Computer-AssistedBayes TheoremEvoked PotentialsHumansBayesian statisticsEffect sizeERPMultiple comparisonPermutation testsPowerTime frequency

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.