@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/01_Meta-Skills/verify-skill/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+---
+name: "verify-skill"
+description: "Interactive skill verification — assess accuracy of parameters, citations, and methodology through structured expert review"
+domain: "meta-skill"
+version: "1.0.0"
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+dependencies:
+  required:
+    - research-literacy
+---
+
+# Verify Skill
+
+## Purpose
+
+This meta-skill guides domain experts through a structured verification of any skill in this repository. It produces a detailed verification report that records the expert's assessment of parameters, citations, and methodology — then submits the report to GitHub Discussions for community knowledge building.
+
+Verification is the **highest-impact contribution** a domain expert can make. Every skill starts as `ai-generated` and needs human verification to progress to `community-reviewed` or `expert-verified`.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+Activate when the user:
+
+- Says "verify a skill", "验证这个 skill", "review this skill's accuracy"
+- Wants to check whether a skill's parameters and citations are correct
+- Has domain expertise and wants to contribute a verification
+- Is reviewing a skill before using it in their research
+
+---
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before starting the verification process, you MUST:
+
+1. **Identify the target skill** — Which skill will be verified? Read its SKILL.md.
+2. **Assess the reviewer's qualifications** — What is their domain expertise and experience level?
+3. **Define verification scope** — Will this be a full verification or focused on specific sections?
+4. **Note inherent limitations** — Verification without lab replication cannot confirm all claims; flag what can and cannot be verified from literature alone.
+5. **Present the verification plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see `skills/research-literacy/SKILL.md`.
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+---
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+Before running this skill, verify:
+
+1. **`gh` CLI is installed and authenticated**
+
+   Run: `gh auth status`
+
+   If not authenticated, tell the user:
+   > To submit verification reports, you need the GitHub CLI. Install it from https://cli.github.com/ and run `gh auth login`.
+   > Alternatively, I can save the report as a local markdown file.
+
+2. **The target skill exists** — The skill directory must exist under `skills/` in the repository.
+
+---
+
+## Interactive Flow (6 Phases)
+
+### Progress Tracking (Required)
+
+**At the start of the verification, you MUST create a task list** (using TodoWrite or equivalent) with these items:
+
+- [ ] Phase 1: Cognitive Alignment
+- [ ] Phase 2: Experience Collection
+- [ ] Phase 3: Test Scenario Construction
+- [ ] Phase 4: Item-by-Item Assessment
+- [ ] Phase 5: Apply Corrections to Skill
+- [ ] Phase 6: Generate Report and Submit to GitHub Discussions ← **DO NOT SKIP**
+
+**Mark each item as you complete it.** Do NOT consider the verification complete until ALL items are checked, especially Phase 6 (GitHub submission).
+
+### Phase 1 — Cognitive Alignment
+
+**Goal:** Ensure the reviewer understands what the skill does before assessing it.
+
+1. **Read the target skill's SKILL.md** in full.
+
+2. **Present a summary to the reviewer:**
+   - What this skill does (purpose and domain)
+   - Typical use scenarios (when it triggers)
+   - Key parameters and claims it makes (list the specific numbers and citations)
+   - What verification means in this context
+
+3. **Ask the reviewer:** "Does this summary match your understanding of the skill? Anything to clarify before we proceed?"
+
+4. **Wait for confirmation** before moving to Phase 2.
+
+> **Next → Phase 2: Experience Collection** (4 remaining phases until GitHub submission)
+
+### Phase 2 — Experience Collection
+
+**Goal:** Understand the reviewer's domain knowledge to calibrate the verification.
+
+Present these questions:
+
+**Q1: How familiar are you with this domain?** (1-5)
+- 1 = Heard of it
+- 2 = Read about it
+- 3 = Studied it formally
+- 4 = Use it in my research
+- 5 = I am a specialist in this area
+
+**Q2: Have you used these methods in your research?**
+- Yes, I use them regularly (describe briefly)
+- Yes, I have used them before (describe context)
+- No, but I know the literature well
+- No, I am learning about this area
+
+**Q3: For the key parameters listed in Phase 1, what values do you typically use?**
+- Present each key parameter from the skill and ask the reviewer what value they use or expect
+- This is a per-parameter question — iterate through the most important parameters
+- Accept "I don't know" as a valid answer
+
+**Q4: What pitfalls have you encountered that this skill should mention?**
+- Free text — any practical warnings from experience
+
+> **Next → Phase 3: Test Scenario Construction** (3 remaining phases until GitHub submission)
+
+### Phase 3 — Test Scenario Construction
+
+**Goal:** Test the skill against a realistic scenario to evaluate its practical advice.
+
+1. **Ask the reviewer to describe a scenario:**
+   > "Describe a real or realistic dataset and research question where you would use the methods covered by this skill. Include: modality, sample size, conditions, and what you are trying to find."
+
+2. **Run the target skill** against this scenario (simulate how the skill would respond to the described research question).
+
+3. **Present the skill's recommendations** for this scenario.
+
+4. **Ask the reviewer to evaluate:**
+   - Did the skill give appropriate recommendations for this scenario?
+   - Were there any incorrect suggestions?
+   - What important advice was missing?
+
+> **Next → Phase 4: Item-by-Item Assessment** (2 remaining phases until GitHub submission)
+
+### Phase 4 — Item-by-Item Assessment
+
+**Goal:** Systematic parameter-by-parameter verification with structured scoring.
+
+For each key claim in the skill (parameters, thresholds, citations, methodological recommendations), present a table row and ask the reviewer to assess:
+
+**Assessment format:**
+
+| # | Parameter | Skill Says | Citation | Your Verdict | Notes |
+|---|-----------|-----------|----------|-------------|-------|
+| 1 | [param name] | [value from skill] | [cited source] | ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ / ❓ | [reviewer's explanation] |
+| 2 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+**Verdict options:**
+- ✅ **Confirmed** — The value and citation are correct
+- ⚠️ **Context-dependent** — Correct in some contexts but not universally; needs qualification
+- ❌ **Incorrect** — The value or citation is wrong (reviewer provides the correct information)
+- ❓ **Cannot verify** — The reviewer does not have enough expertise or resources to confirm
+
+**Process each parameter interactively** — present 3-5 parameters at a time, get the reviewer's verdicts, then continue with the next batch.
+
+After all parameters are assessed, collect **overall ratings** (1-5 stars each):
+
+1. **Parameter accuracy** — Are the numerical values and thresholds correct?
+2. **Completeness** — Does the skill cover all important aspects of this methodology?
+3. **Practical usefulness** — Would this skill actually help a researcher do better work?
+4. **Pitfall awareness** — Does the skill warn about common mistakes and edge cases?
+
+> **⚠️ CRITICAL: Do NOT stop here. Next → Phase 5: Apply Corrections, then Phase 6: Submit to GitHub Discussions. The verification is NOT complete without submission.**
+
+### Phase 5 — Apply Corrections
+
+**Goal:** Update the skill based on verification findings.
+
+If Phase 4 produced any ❌ (Incorrect) or ⚠️ (Context-dependent) verdicts:
+
+1. **List all corrections needed** — Summarize what parameters, citations, or methodology need updating based on the reviewer's verdicts.
+
+2. **Apply corrections to the skill's SKILL.md:**
+   - Fix incorrect parameter values (replace with reviewer-provided values and citations)
+   - Add missing caveats or context qualifications for ⚠️ items
+   - Update citations where the reviewer identified errors
+   - Add pitfalls and warnings from the reviewer's experience (Phase 2 Q4)
+
+3. **Update the skill's `review_status`** in the YAML frontmatter:
+   - If the reviewer's familiarity was 4-5 → set to `"expert-verified"`
+   - If the reviewer's familiarity was 2-3 → set to `"community-reviewed"`
+   - If the reviewer's familiarity was 1 → keep as `"ai-generated"`
+
+4. **Commit the changes** with a descriptive message, e.g.: `fix: update [skill-name] parameters per expert verification`
+
+5. **Present the diff to the reviewer** for confirmation.
+
+If Phase 4 produced NO corrections needed (all ✅), skip to Phase 6 but still update `review_status` if appropriate.
+
+> **⚠️ CRITICAL: You are NOT done. You MUST proceed to Phase 6 to submit the verification report to GitHub Discussions.**
+
+### Phase 6 — Report Generation and Submission
+
+**Goal:** Generate a structured verification report and submit it to GitHub Discussions.
+
+1. **Generate the verification report** using the format below.
+
+2. **Present the complete report** to the reviewer. Present options:
+   - **Approve all** — Submit as shown
+   - **Delete sections** — Remove specific sections
+   - **Anonymize** — Replace identifying information (name, institution) with generic descriptions
+   - **Save locally only** — Save without submitting to GitHub
+   - **Abort** — Cancel without saving
+
+3. **Wait for explicit confirmation** before submitting.
+
+4. **Submit to GitHub Discussions** in the "Verification" category.
+
+**Submission command:**
+
+```bash
+gh api graphql -f query='
+mutation {
+  createDiscussion(input: {
+    repositoryId: "REPO_ID",
+    categoryId: "VERIFICATION_CATEGORY_ID",
+    title: "Verification Report: SKILL_NAME",
+    body: "REPORT_BODY_HERE"
+  }) {
+    discussion {
+      url
+    }
+  }
+}'
+```
+
+**To get the required IDs:**
+
+```bash
+gh api graphql -f query='
+{
+  repository(owner: "HaoxuanLiTHUAI", name: "awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills") {
+    id
+    discussionCategories(first: 10) {
+      nodes {
+        id
+        name
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}'
+```
+
+After successful submission, display the Discussion URL to the reviewer.
+
+**If submission fails:** Save the report to `~/.cache/awesome-neuro-skills/pending-verifications/YYYY-MM-DD-skill-name.md` and provide manual submission instructions.
+
+---
+
+## Verification Report Format
+
+```markdown
+## Verification Report: [skill-name]
+
+### Reviewer Profile
+- **Domain**: [e.g., "cognitive neuroscience"]
+- **Experience**: [e.g., "5 years EEG research"]
+- **Familiarity with this topic**: [1-5 from Q1]
+- **Context**: [e.g., "currently running oddball paradigm study"]
+
+### Verification Scenario
+> [Description of the test scenario used in Phase 3]
+
+### Skill Evaluation Against Scenario
+> [Summary of how well the skill performed on the test scenario]
+
+### Parameter Review
+| # | Parameter | Skill Says | Citation | Verdict | Notes |
+|---|-----------|-----------|----------|---------|-------|
+| 1 | [param] | [value] | [citation] | ✅/⚠️/❌/❓ | [explanation] |
+
+### Expert Insights
+> [Reviewer's professional knowledge that supplements or corrects the skill — from Q3, Q4, and Phase 3 feedback]
+
+### Overall Scores
+| Dimension | Score |
+|-----------|-------|
+| Parameter accuracy | [1-5 stars] |
+| Completeness | [1-5 stars] |
+| Practical usefulness | [1-5 stars] |
+| Pitfall awareness | [1-5 stars] |
+
+### Suggested Improvements
+- [Concrete suggestions for updates to the skill]
+
+---
+*Submitted via the `verify-skill` meta-skill.*
+```
+
+---
+
+## Verification Depth Guidance
+
+### What CAN be verified from literature
+
+- Whether a cited paper exists and the citation is correct
+- Whether the cited paper actually recommends the stated parameter value
+- Whether the methodology matches current field consensus
+- Whether important caveats or alternatives are mentioned
+
+### What CANNOT be verified without lab work
+
+- Whether specific parameter values are optimal for all datasets
+- Whether the pipeline actually produces valid results on real data
+- Whether edge cases and failure modes are exhaustively covered
+
+Flag this distinction clearly in the report.
+
+---
+
+## Completion Checklist
+
+**Before considering this verification COMPLETE, you MUST confirm ALL of the following:**
+
+- [ ] Skill SKILL.md has been updated with corrections (if any ❌/⚠️ verdicts in Phase 4)
+- [ ] `review_status` has been updated in the skill's YAML frontmatter
+- [ ] Changes have been committed to git
+- [ ] Verification report has been submitted to GitHub Discussions (or saved locally if `gh` is unavailable)
+- [ ] Discussion URL (or local file path) has been shown to the reviewer
+
+**If any item above is unchecked, GO BACK and complete it now. Do NOT end the conversation.**

package/skills/02_Cross-Domain_Foundation/cogsci-power-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+name: "cogsci-power-analysis"
+description: "Domain-specific statistical power analysis guidance for cognitive and neuroscience research, encoding effect size priors and sample size recommendations by modality"
+domain: "research-methods"
+version: "1.0.0"
+papers:
+ - "Brysbaert, 2019"
+ - "Lakens, 2022"
+ - "Button et al., 2013"
+ - "Marek et al., 2022"
+ - "Boudewyn et al., 2018"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# Cognitive Science Power Analysis
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill encodes domain-specific knowledge for planning adequately powered studies in cognitive science and neuroscience. It provides:
+
+- **Effect size priors** calibrated to specific paradigms and modalities (behavioral, EEG/ERP, fMRI, clinical/developmental)
+- **Sample size recommendations** grounded in empirical meta-analyses rather than arbitrary conventions
+- **Power analysis workflow guidance** tailored to the design complexities of cognitive neuroscience (repeated measures, multilevel, neuroimaging-specific tools)
+
+An AI agent needs this because generic power analysis advice (e.g., "use G*Power with d = 0.5") fails to capture the enormous variability in effect sizes across cognitive science paradigms, and because neuroimaging modalities have unique statistical considerations.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- A researcher is designing a new behavioral, EEG, or fMRI experiment and needs sample size justification
+- A grant proposal requires a power analysis section
+- A preregistration document needs effect size justification and sample size rationale
+- Someone asks "how many participants do I need?" for a cognitive/neuroscience study
+- Reviewing whether a published study was adequately powered
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** — What study is being planned and what effect is being powered for?
+2. **Justify the method choice** — Why this design and analysis approach? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** — What is the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI)?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** — What assumptions does this power analysis make? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Identify the Research Modality and Design
+
+Determine which modality and design type apply:
+
+| Modality | Common Designs | Key Consideration |
+|----------|---------------|-------------------|
+| Behavioral | Between-groups, within-subjects, mixed | Effect sizes vary enormously by paradigm |
+| EEG/ERP | Within-subjects repeated measures | Trial count matters as much as participant count |
+| fMRI (task) | Within-subjects block/event-related | Whole-brain vs. ROI analysis affects power |
+| fMRI (individual differences) | Correlational, between-subjects | Requires much larger N than task contrasts |
+| Clinical/Developmental | Case-control, longitudinal | Recruitment constraints often limit N; adjust design |
+
+### Step 2: Obtain an Effect Size Prior
+
+**Do not use generic benchmarks** (Cohen's "small/medium/large"). Instead:
+
+1. **Best option**: Use a meta-analytic estimate for the specific paradigm. See `references/effect-sizes.md` for a curated library organized by modality.
+2. **Second option**: Use the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) — the minimum effect that would be theoretically or practically meaningful (Lakens, 2022).
+3. **Third option**: Use pilot data, but apply shrinkage correction — pilot studies systematically overestimate effect sizes (Albers & Lakens, 2018).
+4. **Last resort**: Use the modality-specific median effect sizes from large-scale meta-analyses (see below).
+
+**Modality-level median effect sizes (use only when paradigm-specific estimates are unavailable):**
+
+| Modality | Median Effect Size | Source |
+|----------|--------------------|--------|
+| Behavioral (cognitive psychology) | d = 0.40 | Brysbaert, 2019 |
+| EEG/ERP component differences | d = 0.50 - 1.00 | Boudewyn et al., 2018; Clayson et al., 2019 |
+| fMRI task activation | d = 0.75 - 1.00 (within-subject) | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| fMRI brain-behavior correlation | r = 0.10 - 0.20 | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| Clinical group differences | d = 0.30 - 0.80 | Leucht et al., 2015; Button et al., 2013 |
+
+> **Critical warning**: The median statistical power in neuroscience has been estimated at only **21%** (Button et al., 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience). Many published effect sizes are inflated by publication bias. Always apply skepticism to effect sizes from underpowered, unreplicated studies.
+
+### Step 3: Conduct the Power Analysis
+
+Choose method based on design complexity:
+
+#### Simple Designs (t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation)
+
+Use **analytic solutions** via G*Power or pwr (R):
+
+```
+Target: 80% power (minimum) or 90% power (recommended)
+Alpha: 0.05 (two-tailed unless directional hypothesis is justified)
+```
+
+- Two-sample t-test: `pwr.t.test(d = effect_size, power = 0.80, sig.level = 0.05, type = "two.sample")`
+- Within-subjects t-test: `pwr.t.test(d = effect_size_dz, power = 0.80, sig.level = 0.05, type = "paired")`
+- Correlation: `pwr.r.test(r = effect_size, power = 0.80, sig.level = 0.05)`
+
+#### Complex Designs (mixed ANOVA, multilevel, mediation)
+
+Use **simulation-based power analysis**:
+
+- **simr** (R package): For linear mixed-effects models (Green & MacLeod, 2016)
+- **Superpower** (R/Shiny): For factorial ANOVA designs (Lakens & Caldwell, 2021)
+- **Monte Carlo simulation**: For non-standard designs — simulate data under the expected effect, run analysis, repeat 10,000+ times
+
+#### Neuroimaging-Specific
+
+- **fMRIpower**: Power for fMRI group analyses (Mumford & Nichols, 2008)
+- **NeuroPowerTools**: Web-based fMRI power calculator (Durnez et al., 2016)
+- **For EEG/ERP**: No standard tool; use simulation with expected component amplitudes and noise levels. See `references/sample-size-guide.md` for worked examples.
+
+### Step 4: Apply Modality-Specific Rules of Thumb
+
+Use these as **sanity checks**, not replacements for formal power analysis:
+
+| Modality | Minimum N (per group/condition) | Basis |
+|----------|-------------------------------|-------|
+| Behavioral (medium effect, d ≈ 0.5) | n = 30-50 per group | Brysbaert, 2019 |
+| Behavioral (small effect, d ≈ 0.2) | n = 80-100 per group | Brysbaert, 2019 |
+| Behavioral (within-subjects, d_z ≈ 0.4) | n = 50-65 | Brysbaert, 2019 |
+| EEG/ERP (within-subjects) | n = 25-40 | Boudewyn et al., 2018 |
+| fMRI (task activation, within-subjects) | n = 30-50 | Cremers et al., 2017; Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| fMRI (individual differences / brain-behavior) | n = 100+ (ideally 200+) | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| fMRI (clinical group comparison) | n = 30-50 per group | Button et al., 2013 |
+| Clinical/patient studies | n = 20-30 per group (minimum) | Leucht et al., 2015 |
+| Developmental (cross-sectional age groups) | n = 25-40 per age group | Mills & Tamnes, 2014 |
+
+### Step 5: Document and Report
+
+For preregistration and manuscripts, the power analysis section must include:
+
+1. **Effect size used** and its source (meta-analysis, pilot, SESOI)
+2. **Power analysis method** (analytic, simulation-based, tool used)
+3. **Target power level** (80% or 90%) and alpha level
+4. **Resulting sample size** and any adjustments (attrition, exclusion rate)
+5. **Sensitivity analysis**: What is the minimum detectable effect at the planned N?
+
+Template language:
+
+> "Based on the meta-analytic effect size of d = [X] reported by [Author, Year], a power analysis using [tool] indicated that N = [X] participants per group would be needed to detect this effect with [80/90]% power at alpha = .05 (two-tailed). Anticipating a [X]% attrition/exclusion rate, we plan to recruit N = [adjusted X]."
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Using Cohen's generic benchmarks as effect size priors**: Cohen (1988) himself warned these were rough guidelines. Cognitive science effects range from d = 0.1 to d = 3.0+ depending on the paradigm. Always use paradigm-specific estimates (Brysbaert, 2019).
+
+2. **Ignoring the distinction between d and d_z**: Between-subjects Cohen's d and within-subjects d_z are not interchangeable. Within-subjects designs typically yield larger d_z due to reduced error variance. Confusing them leads to incorrect sample size estimates (Lakens, 2013).
+
+3. **Powering for whole-brain fMRI but reporting ROI results (or vice versa)**: Whole-brain analyses with multiple comparison correction require larger effects to survive thresholding. Power calculations must match the planned analysis (Mumford & Nichols, 2008).
+
+4. **Treating pilot effect sizes as population estimates**: Pilot studies with N = 10-20 produce wildly variable effect size estimates. Apply a correction factor or use the lower bound of the CI (Albers & Lakens, 2018).
+
+5. **Ignoring trial count in EEG/ERP power**: For ERP analyses, both participant N and trial count per condition affect statistical power. Insufficient trials per condition reduces signal-to-noise ratio regardless of participant count (Boudewyn et al., 2018; Luck, 2014).
+
+6. **Assuming brain-behavior correlations are large**: Marek et al. (2022) demonstrated that brain-wide association studies require thousands of participants for reliable effects. Planning an fMRI individual-differences study with N = 30 is almost certainly underpowered.
+
+## Quick Reference Decision Table
+
+| Question | Answer | Recommended Action |
+|----------|--------|--------------------|
+| "How many subjects for a Stroop study?" | Within-subjects Stroop effect is very large (d ≈ 1.0-1.5) | N = 15-25 likely sufficient (Brysbaert, 2019) |
+| "How many for an ERP study of N400?" | N400 semantic violation effect d ≈ 0.8-1.5 | N = 20-30 (Boudewyn et al., 2018) |
+| "How many for fMRI brain-behavior correlation?" | True r likely 0.10-0.20 | N = 200+ minimum (Marek et al., 2022) |
+| "How many for a patient vs. control comparison?" | Effects vary widely (d ≈ 0.3-0.8) | N = 30-80 per group depending on expected effect |
+| "Can I use my pilot N=12 effect size?" | Pilot effect is unreliable | Use meta-analytic estimate instead; if unavailable, use lower CI bound of pilot |
+
+## References
+
+- Albers, C., & Lakens, D. (2018). When power analyses based on pilot data are biased. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 74, 187-195.
+- Boudewyn, M. A., Luck, S. J., Farrens, J. L., & Kappenman, E. S. (2018). How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? *Psychophysiology*, 55(6), e13049.
+- Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we really need? *Journal of Cognition*, 2(1), 16.
+- Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafo, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 14(5), 365-376.
+- Clayson, P. E., Carbine, K. A., Baldwin, S. A., & Larson, M. J. (2019). Methodological reporting behavior, sample sizes, and statistical power in studies of event-related potentials. *Psychophysiology*, 56(11), e13437.
+- Cremers, H. R., Wager, T. D., & Yarkoni, T. (2017). The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI. *PLoS ONE*, 12(11), e0184923.
+- Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, 7(4), 493-498.
+- Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 4, 863.
+- Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. *Collabra: Psychology*, 8(1), 33267.
+- Lakens, D., & Caldwell, A. R. (2021). Simulation-based power analysis for factorial ANOVA designs. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science*, 4(1).
+- Leucht, S., Hierl, S., Kissling, W., Dold, M., & Davis, J. M. (2015). Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective. *British Journal of Psychiatry*, 200(2), 97-106.
+- Luck, S. J. (2014). *An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique* (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
+- Marek, S., Tervo-Clemmens, B., Calabro, F. J., et al. (2022). Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals. *Nature*, 603, 654-660.
+- Mills, K. L., & Tamnes, C. K. (2014). Methods and considerations for longitudinal structural brain imaging analysis across development. *Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience*, 9, 172-190.
+- Mumford, J. A., & Nichols, T. E. (2008). Power calculation for group fMRI studies accounting for arbitrary design and temporal autocorrelation. *NeuroImage*, 39(1), 261-268.
+- Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., et al. (2017). Scanning the horizon: Towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 18(2), 115-126.
+
+See `references/effect-sizes.md` for the full effect size reference library and `references/sample-size-guide.md` for detailed sample size guidance by modality.