Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41332598›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025

Comparing Methods for Mass Univariate Analyses of Human EEG: Empirical Data and Simulations.

Anna-Lena Tebbe, Christian Panitz, Andreas Keil

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.ORCID 0000-0003-4933-2797
Christian PanitzUniversity of Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6692-8555
Andreas KeilUniversity of Florida, Department of Psychology, Laboratory for Brain, Body, and Behavior.ORCID 0000-0002-4064-1924

Funding

Ding R01 Administrative SupplementR01MH125615 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DING, MINGZHOU, KEIL, ANDREAS · 2021 to 2025
$2.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH125615
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electroencephalography (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. In addition, exploratory studies, or studies interested in determining the exact temporal and spatial extent of a predicted effect may aim to examine many sensor locations and time points, often jointly. 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. Here, we review and evaluate different approaches for delineating spatial and temporal effect boundaries in three different datasets, focusing on within-subjects comparisons. Specifically, we focus on permutation-based approaches and their Bayesian alternatives to address condition differences in i) steady-state evoked responses, ii) event-related potentials, and iii) time-frequency data. Overall, simulation results indicate that cluster-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

Indexed as

Bayesian statisticseffect sizeERPMultiple comparisonpermutation testspowertime frequency

Identifiers

PMID41332598
PMCPMC12667769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.