The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mass univariate analysis of event‐related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review
Open accessAbstract
Event‐related potentials (ERPs) and magnetic fields (ERFs) are typically analyzed via ANOVAs on mean activity in a priori windows. Advances in computing power and statistics have produced an alternative, mass univariate analyses consisting of thousands of statistical tests and powerful corrections for multiple comparisons. Such analyses are most useful when one has little a priori knowledge of effect locations or latencies, and for delineating effect boundaries. Mass univariate analyses complement and, at times, obviate traditional analyses. Here we review this approach as applied to ERP/ERF data and four methods for multiple comparison correction: strong control of the familywise error rate (FWER) via permutation tests, weak control of FWER via cluster‐based permutation tests, false discovery rate control, and control of the generalized FWER. We end with recommendations for their use and introduce free MATLAB software for their implementation.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 · Cited by 24,371
The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998 · Cited by 10,490
Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 · Cited by 8,496
Speed of processing in the human visual system
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/381520a0 · Cited by 3,538
Cited by
Keil, A., Debener, S., Gratton, G., Junghöfer, M., Kappenman, E. S., Luck, S. J., Luu, P., Miller, G. A., & Yee, C. M. (2014) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12147 · Cited by 699
Adults with autism overestimate the volatility of the sensory environment
Lawson, R. P., Mathys, C., & Rees, G. (2017) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4615 · Cited by 470
Hippocampal sharp-wave ripples linked to visual episodic recollection in humans
Norman, Y., Yeagle, E. M., Khuvis, S., Harel, M., Mehta, A. D., & Malach, R. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax1030 · Cited by 270
ERP CORE: An open resource for human event-related potential research
Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Zhang, W., Stewart, A. X., & Luck, S. J. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117465 · Cited by 223
Park, H.-D., Bernasconi, F., Salomon, R., Tallon-Baudry, C., Spinelli, L., Seeck, M., Schaller, K., & Blanke, O. (2018) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhx136 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M.
- Venue
- Psychophysiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-09-06
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1711-1725
- ISSN
- 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8986
- OpenAlex
- W1605458923
- Cited by
- 1,169
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 12.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mass univariate analysis of event‐related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x
- The paper
- Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event‐related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
