CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 223EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain function

ERP CORE: An open resource for human event-related potential research

Open access
Kappenman, Emily S., Farrens, Jaclyn L., Zhang, Wendy, Stewart, Andrew X., Luck, Steven J.·2021·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117465PMC PMC7909723
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) are noninvasive measures of human brain activity that index a range of sensory, cognitive, affective, and motor processes. Despite their broad application across basic and clinical research, there is little standardization of ERP paradigms and analysis protocols across studies. To address this, we created ERP CORE (Compendium of Open Resources and Experiments), a set of optimized paradigms, experiment control scripts, data processing pipelines, and sample data (N = 40 neurotypical young adults) for seven widely used ERP components: N170, mismatch negativity (MMN), N2pc, N400, P3, lateralized readiness potential (LRP), and error-related negativity (ERN). This resource makes it possible for researchers to 1) employ standardized ERP paradigms in their research, 2) apply carefully designed analysis pipelines and use a priori selected parameters for data processing, 3) rigorously assess the quality of their data, and 4) test new analytic techniques with standardized data from a wide range of paradigms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117465

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ethical approval for the original data collection was obtained by the original investigators: the ERP CORE dataset was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of California, Davis, and the HRI ErrP dataset was approved by the ethics commission of the Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität München (reference number 236/15s).

    “Ethical approval for the original data collection was obtained by the original investigators: the ERP CORE dataset was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of California, Davis [33]; the HRI ErrP dataset was approved by the ethics commission of the Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (reference number 236/15s) [32].”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The ERN was elicited using an Eriksen flankers task, with response-locked trials classified as incorrect versus correct responses.

    “The error-related negativity was elicited using an Eriksen flankers task in which subjects identified the direction of a central arrowhead flanked by congruent or incongruent distractors. Trials were response-locked and classified as incorrect vs correct responses.”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Methods (Stimuli and Tasks; page unavailable) describe a variant of the Eriksen flanker task with a central arrowhead and congruent or incongruent flankers. The Results (Basic ERP Effects; page unavailable) compare the ERN for incorrect versus correct responses. The passages in our copy do not establish that the analyzed trials were response-locked. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The N170 was elicited using a face perception task with only intact stimuli used, and trials classified as face versus car.

    “The N170 was elicited using a face perception task in which subjects judged whether each stimulus was an intact object (faces or cars) or a texture (scrambled faces or scrambled cars). Only intact stimuli were used; trials were classified as face vs car.”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Methods (Stimuli and Tasks; page unavailable) describe the N170 face-perception task and the object-versus-texture judgment using faces, cars, and their scrambled versions. The Results (Basic ERP Effects; page unavailable) compare N170 responses to faces and cars. Our copy does not explicitly say that only intact-stimulus trials were used in the analysis. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The N2pc was elicited using a visual search task with arrays of colored squares in both hemifields, and trials classified as left-target versus right-target.

    “It was elicited using a visual search task in which subjects viewed arrays of colored squares in both hemifields. On each trial, they identified whether a small notch in the color-defined target square appeared on the top or bottom edge. Trials were classified as left-target vs right-target.”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Material and Methods section (page not provided) confirms that the N2pc was elicited with a visual search task: participants searched for a pink or blue target square and reported whether its gap was on the top or bottom. The Results section (page not provided) describes activity contralateral versus ipsilateral to the target, consistent with target side being relevant. The available text does not state that arrays of squares appeared in both hemifields or that trials were classified as left-target versus right-target. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The original ERP CORE publication reports smaller per-component samples (N = 34-39) after exclusions based on behavioral-accuracy and artifact-rejection criteria tied to their ERP-averaging pipeline.

    “Note that the original ERP CORE publication [33] reports smaller per-component samples (N = 34-39) after exclusions based on behavioral-accuracy and artifact-rejection criteria tied to their ERP-averaging pipeline.”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Boudewyn MA, Luck SJ, Farrens JL, Kappenman ES, 2018. How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? It depends. Psychophysiology. 55, e13049. 10.1111/psyp.13049 29266241 PMC5940511 · DOI
  2. Bukach CM, Stewart K, Couperus JW, Reed CL, 2019. Using Collaborative Models to Overcome Obstacles to Undergraduate Publication in Cognitive Neuroscience. Front. Psychol. 10, 549. 30949093 PMC6437082
  3. Carmel D, 2002. Domain specificity versus expertise: factors influencing distinct processing of faces. Cognition. 83, 1– 29. 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00162-7 11814484 · DOI
  4. Delorme A, Makeig S, 2004. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods. 134, 9– 21. 15102499
  5. van Dinteren R, Arns M, Jongsma MLA, Kessels RPC, 2014. P300 Development across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 9, e87347. 10.1371/journal.pone.0087347 24551055 PMC3923761 · DOI
  6. Eimer M, 2011. The Face-Sensitive N170 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.013.0017 · DOI
  7. Eimer M, Coles MGH, 2003. The Lateralized Readiness Potential, in: Jahanshahi M, Hallett M (Eds.), The Bereitschaftspotential: Movement-Related Cortical Potentials. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 229– 248. 10.1007/978-1-4615-0189-3_14 · DOI
  8. Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW, 1974. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 143– 149.
  9. Feuerriegel D, Churches O, Hofmann J, Keage HAD, 2015. The N170 and face perception in psychiatric and neurological disorders: A systematic review. Clin. Neurophysiol. 126, 1141– 1158. 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.09.015 25306210 · DOI
  10. Gehring WJ, Liu Y, Orr JM, Carp J, 2012. The Error-Related Negativity (ERN/Ne), in: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (Eds.), Oxf. Handb. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 231– 292. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0120 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Groppe DM, Urbach TP, Kutas M, 2011. Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology. 48, 1711– 1725. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x 21895683 PMC4060794 · DOI
  12. Itier RJ, 2004. N170 or N1? Spatiotemporal Differences between Object and Face Processing Using ERPs. Cereb. Cortex. 14, 132– 142. 14704210
  13. Jackson AF, Bolger DJ, 2014. The neurophysiological bases of EEG and EEG measurement: A review for the rest of us: Neurophysiological bases of EEG. Psychophysiology 51, 1061– 1071. 25039563
  14. Jung T-P, Makeig S, Westerfield M, Townsend J, Courchesne E, Sejnowski TJ, 2000. Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects. Clin. Neurophysiol. 111, 1745– 1758. 11018488
  15. Kappenman ES, Luck SJ, 2012. ERP components: The ups and downs of brainwave recordings, in: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (Eds.), Oxf. Handb. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3– 30. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0014 · DOI
  16. Keil A, Debener S, Gratton G, Junghöfer M, Kappenman ES, Luck SJ, Luu P, Miller GA, Yee CM, 2014. Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography: Guidelines for EEG and MEG. Psychophysiology 51, 1– 21. 10.1111/psyp.12147 24147581 · DOI
  17. Kiesel A, Miller J, Jolicœur P, Brisson B, 2008. Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single-participant and jackknife-based scoring methods. Psychophysiology 45, 250– 274. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00618.x 17995913 · DOI
  18. Kopp B, Rist F, Mattler U, 1996. N200 in the flanker task as a neurobehavioral tool for investigating executive control. Psychophysiology. 33, 282– 294. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb00425.x 8936397 · DOI
  19. Kriegeskorte N, Simmons WK, Bellgowan PSF, Baker CI, 2009. Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 535– 540. 19396166 PMC2841687
  20. Lau EF, Phillips C, Poeppel D, 2008. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci. 9, 920– 933. 10.1038/nrn2532 19020511 · DOI
  21. Lopez-Calderon J, Luck SJ, 2014. ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 213. 24782741 PMC3995046
  22. Luck SJ, 2014. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
  23. Luck SJ, 2012. Electrophysiological Correlates of the Focusing of Attention within Complex Visual Scenes: N2pc and Related ERP Components, in: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (Eds.), Oxf. Handb. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 329– 360. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0161 · DOI
  24. Luck SJ, Fuller RL, Braun EL, Robinson B, Summerfelt A, Gold JM, 2006. The speed of visual attention in schizophrenia: Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence. Schizophr. Res. 85, 174– 195. 10.1016/j.schres.2006.03.040 16713184 · DOI
  25. Luck SJ, Gaspelin N, 2017. How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn’t). Psychophysiology. 54, 146– 157. 10.1111/psyp.12639 28000253 PMC5178877 · DOI
  26. Luck SJ, Kappenman ES, 2012. Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Luck SJ, Kappenman ES, Fuller RL, Robinson B, Summerfelt A, Gold JM, 2009. Impaired response selection in schizophrenia: Evidence from the P3 wave and the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology. 46, 776– 786. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00817.x 19386044 PMC2706937 · DOI
  28. Meyer A, Lerner MD, De Los Reyes A, Laird RD, Hajcak G, 2017. Considering ERP difference scores as individual difference measures: Issues with subtraction and alternative approaches: Difference scores and ERPs. Psychophysiology. 54, 114– 122. 10.1111/psyp.12664 28000251 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Näätänen R & Kreegipuu K, 2012. The Mismatch Negativity (MMN). in: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (Eds.), Oxf. Handb. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 143– 157.
  30. Näätänen R, Pakarinen S, Rinne T & Takegata R, 2004. The mismatch negativity (MMN): towards the optimal paradigm. Clin. Neurophysiol. 115, 140– 144. 14706481
  31. Olvet D, Hajcak G, 2008. The error-related negativity (ERN) and psychopathology: Toward an endophenotype. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 28, 1343– 1354. 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.003 18694617 PMC2615243 · DOI
  32. Peirce J, 2019. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behav. Res. Methods 51, 195– 203. 30734206 PMC6420413
  33. Pernet CR, Garrido M, Gramfort A, Maurits N, Michel C, Pang E, … Puce A (2018, 8 9). Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing in Neuroimaging using MEEG. 10.31219/osf.io/a8dhx · DOI
  34. Polich J 2007. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 118, 2128– 2148. 17573239 PMC2715154
  35. Polich J, 2012. Neuropsychology of P300. in Oxf, in: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (Eds.), Handb. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 159– 188. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0089 · DOI
  36. Purmann S, Badde S, Luna-Rodriguez A, Wendt M, 2011. Adaptation to Frequent Conflict in the Eriksen Flanker Task: An ERP Study. J. Psychophysiol. 25, 50– 59. 10.1027/0269-8803/a000041 · DOI
  37. Ritter W, Vaughan HG, 1969. Averaged Evoked Responses in Vigilance and Discrimination: A Reassessment. Science. 164, 326– 328. 10.1126/science.164.3877.326 5776645 · DOI
  38. Rossion B, Caharel S, 2011. ERP evidence for the speed of face categorization in the human brain: Disentangling the contribution of low-level visual cues from face perception. Vision Res. 51, 1297– 1311. 21549144
  39. Rossion B, Jacques C, 2012. The N170: Understanding the Time Course of Face Perception in the Human Brain, in: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (Eds.), Oxf. Handb. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 115– 141. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0064 · DOI
  40. Rousselet GA (2012). Does Filtering Preclude Us from Studying ERP Time-Courses? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 131. 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00131 22586415 PMC3343304 · DOI
  41. Sagiv N, Bentin S, 2001. Structural Encoding of Human and Schematic Faces: Holistic and Part-Based Processes. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, 937– 951. 10.1162/089892901753165854 11595097 · DOI
  42. Sassenhagen J, Draschkow D, 2019. Cluster‐based permutation tests of MEG/EEG data do not establish significance of effect latency or location. Psychophysiology. 56, e13335. 30657176
  43. Schimmel H, 1967. The (±) Reference: Accuracy of Estimated Mean Components in Average Response Studies. Science. 157, 92– 94. 6026675
  44. Smulders FTY, Miller JO, 2012. The Lateralized Readiness Potential, in: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (Eds.), Oxf. Handb. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 209– 230. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0115 · DOI
  45. Swaab TY, Ledoux K, Camblin CC, Boudewyn MAL-RERPC in O.H., 2012. Event-Relat. Potential Compon. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0197 · DOI
  46. Tanner D, Morgan-Short K, & Luck SJ (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology, 52, 997– 1009. 25903295 PMC4506207

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Zhang, W., Stewart, A. X., & Luck, S. J.
Affiliations
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Kappenman, Emily S.
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
225
Pages
117465
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117465
PMC
PMC7909723
OpenAlex
W3093672414
Cited by
223
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2
FWCI
10.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01MH087450, R25MH080794)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
event-related potentials, open science resources, N170, mismatch negativity, N2pc, N400, P3, lateralized readiness potential, error-related negativity, data quality assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review