Guidelines for using human event‐related potentials to study cognition: Recording standards and publication criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded from the human scalp can provide important information about how the human brain normally processes information and about how this processing may go awry in neurological or psychiatric disorders. Scientists using or studying ERPs must strive to overcome the many technical problems that can occur in the recording and analysis of these potentials. The methods and the results of these ERP studies must be published in a way that allows other scientists to understand exactly what was done so that they can, if necessary, replicate the experiments. The data must then be analyzed and presented in a way that allows different studies to be compared readily. This paper presents guidelines for recording ERPs and criteria for publishing the results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.157 | 0.467 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.052 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".