The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects Models: A Tutorial
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
In psychology, attempts to replicate published findings are less successful than expected. For properly powered studies replication rate should be around 80%, whereas in practice less than 40% of the studies selected from different areas of psychology can be replicated. Researchers in cognitive psychology are hindered in estimating the power of their studies, because the designs they use present a sample of stimulus materials to a sample of participants, a situation not covered by most power formulas. To remedy the situation, we review the literature related to the topic and introduce recent software packages, which we apply to the data of two masked priming studies with high power. We checked how we could estimate the power of each study and how much they could be reduced to remain powerful enough. On the basis of this analysis, we recommend that a properly powered reaction time experiment with repeated measures has at least 1,600 word observations per condition (e.g., 40 participants, 40 stimuli). This is considerably more than current practice. We also show that researchers must include the number of observations in meta-analyses because the effect sizes currently reported depend on the number of stimuli presented to the participants. Our analyses can easily be applied to new datasets gathered.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Aggregations provide independent observations for non-parametric testing and make it appropriate when dealing with small sample sizes and repeated measures [8].”
From How University Disability Services Professionals Write Image Descriptions for HCI Figures Using Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835 · cited 2×
“Table 2: Outcome of the lmer analysis (Bates et al., 2015) of the Adelman et al.”
BackgroundFaul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 · Cited by 8,540
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567 · cited 1×
“What must be avoided, is that authors try out the various options and only report the one that produces a “significant” effect, a phenomenon known as p-hacking (Simmons et al., 2011).”
BackgroundAnalyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R
Baayen, R. H. (2008) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511801686 · Cited by 3,253
The New Statistics: Why and How
Cumming, G. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 · Cited by 3,200 · cited 1×
“First, p-values show wide sample-to-sample variability, particularly when they are based on studies with small sample sizes (Cumming, 2014; Halsey, Curran-Everett, Vowler, & Drummond, 2015).”
BackgroundSIMR : an R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation
Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J. (2016) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12504 · Cited by 2,467 · cited 1×
“A particularly interesting R package is simR (Green & MacLeod, 2016; Green, MacLeod, & Alday, 2016).2 2 The authors thank Jason Geller for pointing them to this package.”
BackgroundAnalyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R
Dévière, E. (2009) · Journal of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1080/02664760802366783 · Cited by 2,347 · cited 2×
“Some authors demand the use of transformations to get normal distributions (e.g., Baayen, 2008).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 1,003
Mutual interference between memory encoding and motor skills: the influence of motor expertise
Monz, A., Morbe, K., Klein, M., & Schaefer, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1196978 · Cited by 6
Armitage, J. O., Lahdelma, I., Eerola, T., & Ambrazevičius, R. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294645 · Cited by 6
Long-term disgust habituation with limited generalisation in care home workers
Edgar, C., Chan, F., Armstrong, T., & Dalmaijer, E. S. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299429 · Cited by 8
“For linear mixed-effects analyses, power depends on the number of individuals and the number of observations per individual; and the recommended total number of observations per condition is 1600 [45].”
Reading(,) with and without commas
Angele, B., Gutiérrez-Cordero, I., Perea, M., & Marcet, A. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218231200338 · Cited by 6
“The aim was to have a minimum of 1,800 observations per condition, using the rule of thumb recommended for small effect sizes by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018).”
MethodVainio, L., Wikström, A., Repetto, C., & Vainio, M. (2023) · Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/langcog.2023.31 · Cited by 4
Individual attention capacity enhances in-field group performances in soccer
Memmert, D., Klemp, M., Schwab, S., & Low, B. (2023) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2023.2204364 · Cited by 10
“The magnitude of the e ff ects was calculated following Brysbaert and Stevens (2018), adopting a calculation of Cohen ’ s d fi t for mixed models.”
Johnson, R. L., Wootten, M., Spear, A. I., & Smolensky, A. (2023) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/s10936-023-09959-y · Cited by 6
“A sample size of 60 participants was selected based on a priori calculations using the recommendation by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) to collect 1600 observations per condition for adequate power for linear mixed-effects analyses.”
MethodYu, L., Zhang, Q., Ke, M., Han, Y., & Kinoshita, S. (2022) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02207-9 · Cited by 6
“Given that each condition contained 40 trials, this sample size ensured 1,600 observations in each experimental condition, in line with Brysbaert and Stevens’ (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018) recommendation for a wellpowered masked priming experiment.”
MethodDoes adding an accent mark hinder lexical access? Evidence from Spanish
Labusch, M., Gómez, P., & Perea, M. (2022) · Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science · doi:10.1007/s41809-022-00104-0 · Cited by 5
“With this sample size, we obtained 2400 observations in the critical comparison (cebra vs. cébra), which is in line with Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) for smallsized effects.”
BackgroundMethodActivity profile of elite Gaelic football referees during competitive match play
Brady, A. J., Moyna, N. M., Scriney, M., & McCarren, A. L. (2022) · Science and Medicine in Football · doi:10.1080/24733938.2022.2049456 · Cited by 7
“This approach is recommended for LMM designs (Brysbaert and Stevens 2018).”
MethodSpeech kinematic variability in adults who stutter is influenced by treatment and speaking style.
Loucks, T. M. J., Pelczarski, K. M., Lomheim, H., & Aalto, D. (2022) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2022.106194 · Cited by 6
The Second-Language Productivity of Two Mandarin Tone Sandhi Patterns
Qin, Z. (2022) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/j.specom.2022.02.009 · Cited by 3
Xia, Q., Wang, T., Wang, J., Meng, Z., & Yu, M. (2022) · Lingua · doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103239 · Cited by 7
The Omission of Accent Marks Does Not Hinder Word Recognition: Evidence From Spanish
Marcet, A., Fernández-López, M., Labusch, M., & Perea, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.794923 · Cited by 6
“This sample size guarantees 2,400 observations in each condition (40 participants × 60 items/condition), thus having enough power to detect small-sized effects (see Brysbaert and Stevens, 2018).”
BackgroundGlottal stops do not constrain lexical access as do oral stops
Mitterer, H., Kim, S., & Cho, T. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259573 · Cited by 6
“With nearly 40 participants and 48 items, we are confident that our experiment was not underpowered [55].”
BackgroundOvernight fasting affects avoidance learning and relief
Papalini, S., Neefs, L., Beckers, T., Oudenhove, L. V., & Vervliet, B. (2022) · Nutritional Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/1028415x.2022.2103068 · Cited by 10
“variance of the intercept (random subjects) [32].”
Positive and negative action-effects improve task-switching performance
Ludwig, J., Dignath, D., & Lukas, S. (2021) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103440 · Cited by 8
Is second best good enough? An EEG study on the effects of word expectancy in sentence comprehension
Frade, S., Pinheiro, A. P., Santi, A., & Raposo, A. (2021) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2021.1955140 · Cited by 7
“As this study included 30 participants and 45 items per condition (i.e. approximately 1350 observations per condition), there is an acceptable number of observations to ensure good power for the analysis (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018; Matuschek et al., 2017).”
How prior experience with pitch accents shapes the perception of word and sentence stress
Kutscheid, S., Zahner-Ritter, K., Leemann, A., & Braun, B. (2021) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2021.1946109 · Cited by 8
“In total, we collected 2592 responses for the experimental WSW trials (72 participants x 36 experimental trials), thus exceeding the 1600 measurements recommendation by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) or having abundant statistical power.”
MethodManual motor reaction while being absorbed into popular music
Vroegh, T., Wiesmann, S. L., Henschke, S., & Lange, E. B. (2021) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2021.103088 · Cited by 7
The role of non-connective discourse cues and their interaction with connectives
Crible, L., & Demberg, V. (2020) · Pragmatics & Cognition · doi:10.1075/pc.20003.cri · Cited by 6
Kirk, H., Raber, A., Richmond, S., & Cornish, K. M. (2020) · Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability · doi:10.3109/13668250.2020.1821939 · Cited by 7
“The estimation of moderation in the current study is exploratory and power analyses were conducted post hoc using the simr package in R (version 1.0.5) for linear mixed models (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018; Green & Macleod, 2016).”
MethodInfluentialFriend or foe? Flankers reverse the direction of orthographic neighbourhood effects
Meade, G. F., Jonathan Grainger, B., & Declerck, M. (2020) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2020.1849750 · Cited by 7
“As suggested by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018), we ran 200 Monte Carlo simulations using the SIMR package in R on the data reported by Meade et al. (2019).”
MethodContextual constraint and lexical competition: Revisiting biased misperception during reading.
Harris, J. A., Rich, S., & Rigby, I. A. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000878 · Cited by 5
“However, repeated measures designs complicate power calculations (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018; Judd et al., 2017).”
BackgroundBehavioral and Neural Responses to Tone Errors in Foreign‐Accented Mandarin
Pelzl, E., Lau, E. F., Jackson, S. R., Guo, T., & Gor, K. (2020) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12438 · Cited by 6
Amenta, S., Artesini, L., Musola, D., Frau, G. N., Vespignani, F., & Pavani, F. (2020) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2020.1804600 · Cited by 6
Cross-linguistic interactions across modalities: Effects of the oral language on sign production
Gimeno‐Martínez, M., Mädebach, A., & Baus, C. (2021) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728921000171 · Cited by 6
How readers process syntactic input depends on their goals.
Vandendaele, A., Declerck, M., Grainger, J., & Snell, J. (2020) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103006 · Cited by 6
Baier, D., & Ulrich Ansorge, A. (2019) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506285.2019.1704957 · Cited by 7
“For this, we simulated data based on our design and the actual distribution of our data (cf. Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018): The design of Experiment 2 consisted of four cells (ISI short & congruent, ISI short & incongruent, ISI long & congruent, and ISI long & incongruent) with 48 trials per cell.”
MethodMorphological sensitivity generalizes across modalities
Gafni, C., Yablonski, M., & Ben‐Shachar, M. (2019) · The Mental Lexicon · doi:10.1075/ml.18020.gaf · Cited by 7
“Analyses of RT data were conducted on correct responses only, after applying an inverse-transformation to raw RT values (-1000/RT, see Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018).”
MethodBernier, D. E., & White, K. S. (2019) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2019_jslhr-h-18-0465 · Cited by 6
“Random effects error variance was used as an estimate of σ 2 to calculate Cohen ’ s d for model estimates (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018; Westfall, Kenny, & Judd, 2014).”
The spectatorship of portraits by naïve beholders.
Trawiński, T., Mestry, N., Harland, B., Liversedge, S. P., Godwin, H. J., & Donnelly, N. (2019) · Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000248 · Cited by 4
“Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) noted that repeated measures designs will have sufficient power to detect a typical effect size in psychology when the number of participants multiplied by the number of stimuli exceed 1600 observations per condition.”
Mädebach, A., Kurtz, F., Schriefers, H. J., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2020) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2020.1727539 · Cited by 10
Unfolding meaning in context: The dynamics of conceptual similarity
Mirković, J., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.018 · Cited by 42
Liu, J. M., Knowlton, C. B., Gauthier, M. L., Tropp, Z., Verma, N. N., Nicholson, G. P., Romeo, A. A., & Zaferiou, A. M. (2025) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112919 · Cited by 5
Grammatical gender in Slovak word production: an event-related potential study
Stolle, S. I., Hanulíková, A., & Schiller, N. O. (2025) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2025.2501738 · Cited by 4
“Importantly, the present study exceeds the minimum number of observations per condition recommended for a properly powered reaction time experiment (i.e. 1,600 observations, see Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018), which strengthens our findings.”
Cauchi, C., & Meeter, M. (2025) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.446 · Cited by 5
Sample size and its justification in the Journal of Memory and Language
Staub, A. (2025) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2025.104622 · Cited by 7
Emotion words in lexical decision and reading aloud
Mason, C., Hameau, S., & Nickels, L. (2025) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2024.2444582 · Cited by 6
“…been raised regarding the use of data transformation in linear mixed effects models (e.g. Balota et al., 2013; Cohen-Shikora et al., 2019; Wilcox & Rousselet, 2017), we followed the guidelines suggested by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) and ran analyses on both transformed and untransformed data.”
Bischof, A. Y., Budig, T., Schläpfer, S., Lukic, Y. X., Schneider, F., Santhanam, P., Barth, J., Witt, C. M., & Kowatsch, T. (2025) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/70297 · Cited by 5
“To assess the effect size of Breeze to promote momentary relaxation (see RQ3), we calculated Cohen d by the method proposed by Westfall et al [42] as Brysbaert and Stevens [43] recommended for linear mixed effect models.”
Wu, J., Ji, Y., Cai, C., Pu, X., Wang, Q., Yan, G., Wang, X., & Wang, X. (2024) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhae452 · Cited by 5
“First,our exper-iment involves fewer data points per condition than suggested by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018), due to the challenge of managing multiple TWs in a relatively complex design and the relatively large effect observed in previous online TMS studies.”
Illusory truth effect across languages and scripts
Hatzidaki, A., Santesteban, M., & Navarrete, E. (2024) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02596-z · Cited by 7
How Age of Acquisition Affects Compound Word Recognition
Elsherif, M. M., & Catling, J. C. (2024) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2024.2409630 · Cited by 5
Philipp, N. M., Blackburn, S. D., Čabarkapa, D., & Fry, A. C. (2024) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000004906 · Cited by 5
“Furthermore, between-week standardized effect sizes (ES) were calculated in line with earlier recommendations for multi-level models (4).”
Bowers, E. M., Capel, L. K., Woolley, M. G., Barnes, A., Twohig, M. P., & Levin, M. E. (2024) · Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jocrd.2024.100909 · Cited by 5
Flexible word position coding in reading: Roles for attention and memory
Snell, J. (2024) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-024-01623-7 · Cited by 5
“As such there were 40 measurements per condition per participant; and the resulting 2,160 measurements per condition exceeds the recommended 1,600 measurements for ~ 0.80 statistical power in LMM analyses (e.g., Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018).”
InfluentialStrivens, A., Koch, I., & Lavric, A. (2024) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218241256361 · Cited by 4
“3 Hence, we have followed the recommendations of Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) for power in a repeated measures design.”
Impact of Japanese L1 Rhythm on English L2 Speech
Kawase, S., Davis, C., & Kim, J. (2024) · Language and Speech · doi:10.1177/00238309241247210 · Cited by 5
Impact of process interference on memory encoding and retrieval processes in dual-task situations
Hensen, S., Koch, I., & Hirsch, P. (2024) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-024-01539-2 · Cited by 6
“In addition, Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) recently suggested that a properly powered experiment with repeated measures should have at least 1,600 observations per condition (e.g., 40 participants and 40 trials per condition).”
BackgroundReliability of the serial reaction time task: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again
Oliveira, C. M., Hayiou‐Thomas, M. E., & Henderson, L. M. (2024) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218241232347 · Cited by 10
“Median RTs of the PVT were also adopted as these have shown to have good reliability > .80 in adults (Dorrian et al., 2005).”
InfluentialEye-voice and finger-voice spans in adults’ oral reading of connected texts*
Nadalini, A., Marzi, C., Ferro, M., Taxitari, L., Lento, A., Crepaldi, D., & Pirrelli, V. (2023) · The Mental Lexicon · doi:10.1075/ml.00025.nad · Cited by 5
Front Is High and Back Is Low: Sound-Space Iconicity in Finnish
Vainio, L., Kilpeläinen, M., Wikström, A., & Vainio, M. (2023) · Language and Speech · doi:10.1177/00238309231214176 · Cited by 5
Casado, A., Ferré, P., & Paolieri, D. (2023) · Journal of Neurolinguistics · doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2023.101156 · Cited by 5
de Bruin, A., Kressel, H., & Hemmings, D. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-43886-1 · Cited by 7
Cerebellar Neuromodulation Impacts Reading Fluency in Young Adults
Lee, M. M., McGrath, L. M., & Stoodley, C. J. (2023) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1162/nol_a_00124 · Cited by 6
“Effect sizes were calculated based on the following equation from Brysbaert and Stevens (2018): Effect sizes are reported for significant p values.”
MethodResultThe impact of spatial and verbal working memory load on semantic relatedness judgements
Khanzhyn, D., van Heuven, W. J. B., & Rataj, K. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-023-02323-0 · Cited by 5
“…ensured more than 1,600 observations for the critical WR and SR conditions in each working memory condition (27 × 62 = 1,674), which according to Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) is the recommended minimum for repeated-measures studies aiming to detect small effect sizes ( d = .1) usually…”
Nouns are not always processed faster than verbs in bilingual speakers: effects of language distance
Momenian, M., Privitera, A., & Weekes, B. (2023) · Bilingualism: Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728923000408 · Cited by 5
Semantic interference affects speech production by increasing disfluencies, not errors
Rapoeye, K., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pistono, A. (2023) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.230006 · Cited by 6
Can you learn to starve yourself? Inducing food avoidance in the laboratory.
Spix, M., Schutzeichel, F., & Jansen, A. (2023) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2023.104340 · Cited by 5
Bayes Factors for Mixed Models: a Discussion
van Doorn, J. B., Haaf, J. M., Stefan, A. M., Wagenmakers, E., Cox, G. E., Davis‐Stober, C. P., Heathcote, A., Heck, D. W., Kalish, M. L., Kellen, D., et al. (2023) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-022-00160-3 · Cited by 6
“, the problem might be ameliorated by using the total variance as a basis for standardization rather than any individual variance (at least for some common research designs; see Brysbaert and Stevens, 2018; Westfall et al., 2014).”
BackgroundVoice disadvantage effects in absolute and relative pitch judgments
Gao, Z., & Oxenham, A. J. (2022) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/10.0010123 · Cited by 7
Asymmetric switch cost between subitizing and estimation in tactile modality
Lou, C., Zeng, H., & Chen, L. (2022) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-022-02858-w · Cited by 4
“Second, according to “rule-of-thumb” in a recent analysis of power in cognition experiments (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018), an adequately powered experiment requires a total of 1,600 observations (Participants × Trials) per cell of the relevant analysis.”
BackgroundSchmidt, T., Panis, S., Wolkersdorfer, M. P., & Vorberg, D. (2022) · Open Psychology · doi:10.1515/psych-2022-0012 · Cited by 4
Diana, L., Scotti, G., Aiello, E. N., Pilastro, P., Eberhard‐Moscicka, A. K., Müri, R. M., & Bolognini, N. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12010071 · Cited by 5
“Although different methods to estimate sample size for mixed models exist [38], it is challenging to retrieve all needed parameters for a proper a priori analysis because previous works on tDCS and visuospatial attention did not employ this statistical approach.”
MethodNow you see it, now you don't: Flanker presence induces the word concreteness effect
Vandendaele, A., & Jonathan Grainger, B. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104945 · Cited by 5
Biondo, N., Soilemezidi, M., & Mancini, S. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0001053 · Cited by 22
The effect of mindfulness and stereotype threat in mental rotation: a pupillometry study
Bauer, R., Jost, L., & Jansen, P. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2021.1967366 · Cited by 6
“To ensure a sufficient sample size, the effect size of d = .92 ( f = .46), a power of 0.90, and an alpha value of .05, a sample size of 52 women was estimated for this study (see Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018).”
MethodInfluentialAge-related effects on lexical, but not syntactic, processes during sentence production
Hardy, S., Segaert, K., & Wheeldon, L. (2021) · Language, Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2021.1948081 · Cited by 5
“Lastly, in order to quantify the observed e ff ects, we calculated Cohen ’ s d e ff ect sizes using a method appropriate for linear mixed e ff ect models (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018; Judd et al., 2017).”
MethodSearching in CCTV: effects of organisation in the multiplex
Tatler, B. W. (2021) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00277-2 · Cited by 4
“(2020) and Brysbaert and Stevens (2018).”
The tactile Eriksen flanker effect: A time course analysis
Baciero, A., Uribe, I., & Gómez, P. (2021) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02172-2 · Cited by 5
Momenian, M., Cham, S. K., Amini, J. M., Radman, N., & Weekes, B. (2021) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2020.1862878 · Cited by 5
“To decide whether the Experiment had enough power, we consulted Brysbaert and Stevens (2018).”
MethodParker, S., Heathcote, A., & Finkbeiner, M. S. (2020) · Advances in Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.5709/acp-0307-8 · Cited by 6
“Power simulations (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018) using standard estimates taken from a previous study (saccade congruency b = 1.01, cue validity b = 0.81, Parker et al., 2020) confirmed that there was sufficient power (80”
MethodInfluentialHertzog, C. K., Price, J., & Murray, R. G. (2020) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000574 · Cited by 6
“Based on results reported by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) and given the significant interaction effects we report below, it appears that our power to detect moderate effect sizes was adequate.”
ResultSams, M. L., Wagle, J. P., Sato, K., DeWeese, B. H., Sayers, A. L., & Stone, M. H. (2020) · The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000003793 · Cited by 12
“Currently, the only method suggested in the literature involves calculating d by dividing the mean difference by the square root (sqrt) of the respective model’s pooled variance (5,19).”
MethodHirshorn, E. A., Simcox, T., Durisko, C., Perfetti, C. A., & Fiez, J. A. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233041 · Cited by 4
“A power analysis [33] suited to linear mixed models [34] was run, which estimates the power for specific effects in our model using Monte Carlo estimation.”
MethodPerceptuomotor compatibility effects in vowels: Beyond phonemic identity
Mokari, P. G., Gafos, A. I., & Williams, D. (2020) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02014-1 · Cited by 11
The Influence of the German Capitalization Rules on Reading
Pauly, D. N., & Nottbusch, G. (2020) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.00015 · Cited by 5
Anxious individuals predict the onset of aggression earlier in a CCTV surveillance task.
Aitken, B. M., Champion, J. C., & Stainer, M. J. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000199 · Cited by 5
Searching for a word in Chinese text: insights from eye movement behaviour
Wang, X., Sui, X., & White, S. J. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2019.1585435 · Cited by 6
“Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) recommend a total of at least 1,600 observations per condition.”
BackgroundTraficante, D., Marelli, M., & Luzzatti, C. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02335 · Cited by 6
“Only 2.6% of data points in which the eye-tracker did not record any fixation on the corresponding target word, were not considered in the analyses (see Brysbaert and Stevens, 2018 for power analysis in mixed-effects models).”
BackgroundInfluentialCapel, L. K., Bowers, E. M., Becker, M. R., Davis, M. P., Levin, M. E., & Twohig, M. P. (2024) · Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jocrd.2024.100908 · Cited by 4
Morpheme knowledge is shaped by information available through orthography
Korochkina, M., Cooper, H., Brysbaert, M., & Rastle, K. (2025) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-025-02830-2 · Cited by 4
“Brysbaert and Stevens (2018) recommend at least 1,600 observations per condition in a factorial design.”
Self-citationO’Reilly, D., Onysko, A., Rasse, C., Papitsch, L., Colston, H. L., & van der Horst, I. (2025) · Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/langcog.2025.10029 · Cited by 4
“For CLO types 5 and 6 though, despite small-to-medium size effects (higher if based on participant or item averages, cf. Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018; Nicklin et al., 2025) and 95% confidence intervals not containing zero, it is important to emphasise that further substantiation with larger idiom…”
InfluentialWe are what we eat: Cross‐cultural self‐prioritization effects for food stimuli
Dalmaso, M., Vicovaro, M., Saito, T. I., & Watanabe, K. (2025) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.70018 · Cited by 2
“The sample size was determined a priori following guidelines for linear mixed-effects models (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018; see Results section), which recommend collecting at least 1,600 data points per experimental cell.”
Processing of pronouns with gender-inclusive –x in Spanish: An eye-tracking study
Irizarry, A. R., & Tamargo, R. E. G. (2025) · Social Psychology · doi:10.32872/spb.13611 · Cited by 4
Zhang, Y., Larson, M. F., & Cook, C. R. (2025) · Canadian Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1177/08295735251340750 · Cited by 5
“To compare across variables and models within this study, we estimated the standardized fixed effect sizes (partial Cohen’s d ; Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018).”
Wang, Q., Soh, K. G., Danaee, M., Gan, W. Y., Zhu, W. L., Mai, Y. Q., & Luo, S. Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1465784 · Cited by 4
Adult age differences in the integration of values for self and other
Pollerhoff, L., Saulin, A., Kurtz, M., Stietz, J., Peng, X.-R., Hein, G., Tusche, A., Kanske, P., Li, S., & Reiter, A. M. F. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-96656-6 · Cited by 8
Liang, Z., Fan, L., Zhang, B., Shu, W., Li, D., Li, X., & Yu, T. (2025) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121193 · Cited by 5
“The effect size for the LMM was calculated using Cohen ’ s d , expressing the difference between two means relative to their standard deviation (Brysbaert and Stevens, 2018).”
Where Do Children Look When Watching Videos With Same-Language Subtitles?
Lopukhina, A., van Heuven, W. J. B., Crowley, R., & Rastle, K. (2025) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976251325789 · Cited by 3
“We took the approach to power recommended by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018), who suggested having a minimum of 1,600 observations per condition (i.e., the number of items multiplied by the number of participants) in response-time studies using repeated measures to achieve 80% power for detecting…”
Tadayonifar, M., Siyanova‐Chanturia, A., & Elgort, I. (2025) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12706 · Cited by 4
“Effect sizes were interpreted following Brysbaert and Stevens (2018), with expected effect sizes between d = 0.3 and d = 0.4 (a typical effect size in similar psychology studies).”
InfluentialApplying Mixed-Effects Models in Research on Second Language Acquisition: A Tutorial for Beginners
Brysbaert, M. (2025) · Languages · doi:10.3390/languages10020020 · Cited by 3
Self-citationMetacognitive confidence and affect – two sides of the same coin?
Voodla, A., Uusberg, A., & Desender, K. (2025) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2025.2451795 · Cited by 5
“Following (Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018) we required at least 27 participants to achieve 1600 observations per cell of the design (combined across participants) to achieve at least 80% statistical power to detect effect sizes of at least d = 0.1.”
InfluentialDoes comprehension of L2 television programs improve through regular classroom viewing?
Pujadas, G., & Webb, S. (2025) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/73605 · Cited by 4
Development of L1-L2 naming skills in a monolingual context: Evidence from children and adolescents
Iniesta, A., Rivera, M., Paolieri, D., & Bajo, M. T. (2024) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101492 · Cited by 4
Boudelaa, S., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2024) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02563-8 · Cited by 4
“This allowed us to have 5,040 observations (84 subjects × 60 targets per condition) in each condition, which satisfies the recommendations made by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018).”
BackgroundMethodWhole-body linear momentum control in two-foot running jumps in male basketball players
Liu, J. M., & Zaferiou, A. M. (2024) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112300 · Cited by 4
Age differences in context use during reading and downstream effects on recognition memory.
Haeuser, K. I., & Kray, J. (2024) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000845 · Cited by 4
“There were no a priori power simulations, due to the known issues in accurately predicting random effects and slope parameters in linear-mixed effect models (e.g., Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018).”
Hemispheric asymmetry for global-local processing: Effects of stimulus category and ageing
Chen, H., Cox, J. A., & Davies, A. M. A. (2024) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218241280800 · Cited by 5
“Effect size d was computed for post hoc pair-wise comparisons by dividing MD by the square root of the sum of variance for random intercepts, random slopes, and residuals (Westfall et al., 2014; also see Brysbaert & Stevens, 2018).”
Vascello, M. G. F., Pizzighello, S., Spada, M. S., Martinuzzi, A., & Dalmaso, M. (2024) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2024.108975 · Cited by 4
“As we planned to analyse our data with linear mixed-effect models (see the results section), we adhered to the guidelines outlined by Brysbaert and Stevens (2018).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Brysbaert, Marc
- ORCID
- Brysbaert, Marc
- Venue
- Journal of Cognition
- Publisher
- Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-9
- ISSN
- 2514-4820 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6646942
- OpenAlex
- W2783948250
- Cited by
- 1,420
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 154 · 2025: 290 · 2024: 189 · 2023: 195 · 2022: 195 · 2021: 162 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 31
- FWCI
- 82.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Cognition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- power analysis, effect size, mixed models, replication, cognitive psychology, masked priming, reaction time, repeated measures, sample size, meta-analysis, statistical power
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
