Methodological reporting guidelines for studies of ERPs were updated in Psychophysiology in 2014. These guidelines facilitate the communication of key methodological parameters (e.g., preprocessing steps). Failing to report key parameters represents a barrier to replication efforts, and difficulty with replicability increases in the presence of small sample sizes and low statistical power. We assessed whether guidelines are followed and estimated the average sample size and power in recent research. Reporting behavior, sample sizes, and statistical designs were coded for 150 randomly sampled articles from five high‐impact journals that frequently published ERP research from 2011 to 2017. An average of 63% of guidelines were reported, and reporting behavior was similar across journals, suggesting that gaps in reporting is a shortcoming of the field rather than any specific journal. Publication of the guidelines article had no impact on reporting behavior, suggesting that editors and peer reviewers are not enforcing these recommendations. The average sample size per group was 21. Statistical power was conservatively estimated as .72‒.98 for a large effect size, .35‒.73 for a medium effect, and .10‒.18 for a small effect. These findings indicate that failing to report key guidelines is ubiquitous and that ERP studies are primarily powered to detect large effects. Such low power and insufficient following of reporting guidelines represent substantial barriers to replication efforts. The methodological transparency and replicability of studies can be improved by the open sharing of processing code and experimental tasks and by a priori sample size calculations to ensure adequately powered studies.
Maintaining a healthy diet has important implications for physical and mental health. One factor that may influence diet and food consumption is inhibitory control-the ability to withhold a dominant response in order to correctly respond to environmental demands. We examined how N2 amplitude, an ERP that reflects inhibitory control processes, differed toward high- and low-calorie food stimuli and related to food intake. A total of 159 participants (81 female; M age = 23.5 years; SD = 7.6) completed two food-based go/no-go tasks (one with high-calorie and one with low-calorie food pictures as no-go stimuli) while N2 amplitude was recorded. Participants recorded food intake using the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Recall system. Inhibiting responses toward high-calorie stimuli elicited a larger (i.e., more negative) no-go N2 amplitude; inhibiting responses toward low-calorie stimuli elicited a smaller no-go N2 amplitude. Participants were more accurate during the high-calorie than low-calorie task, but took longer to respond on go trials toward high-calorie rather than low-calorie stimuli. When controlling for age, gender, and BMI, larger high-calorie N2 difference amplitude predicted lower caloric intake (β = 0.17); low-calorie N2 difference amplitude was not related to caloric intake (β = -0.03). Exploratory analyses revealed larger high-calorie N2 difference amplitude predicted carbohydrate intake (β = 0.22), but not protein (β = 0.08) or fat (β = 0.11) intake. Results suggest that withholding responses from high-calorie foods requires increased recruitment of inhibitory control processes, which may be necessary to regulate food consumption, particularly for foods high in calories and carbohydrates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.