@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/02_Cross-Domain_Foundation/cogsci-power-analysis/references/effect-sizes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,352 @@
+# Effect Size Reference Library for Cognitive Science and Neuroscience
+
+This document provides empirically-grounded effect size estimates organized by research modality. Every estimate includes its source publication. These values should be used as **priors** for power analysis, not as guaranteed population parameters.
+
+> **Key principle**: Effect sizes are properties of specific paradigms and populations, not universal constants. Always prefer the most specific estimate available for your paradigm.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Behavioral / Cognitive Psychology
+
+### 1.1 Attention and Executive Function
+
+| Paradigm / Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Design | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Stroop interference** (color naming) | d = 1.0 - 1.5 (within) | Within-subjects | MacLeod, 1991 (meta-analysis); Brysbaert, 2019 |
+| **Stroop interference** (between-group comparison, e.g., age) | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Between-groups | Verhaeghen & De Meersman, 1998 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Flanker compatibility effect** | d = 0.4 - 0.8 (within) | Within-subjects | Brysbaert, 2019; Rouder & Haaf, 2019 |
+| **Simon effect** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 (within) | Within-subjects | Hommel, 2011; Lu & Proctor, 1995 |
+| **Task switching cost** (mixing cost) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 (within) | Within-subjects | Kiesel et al., 2010 (review) |
+| **Task switching cost** (switch cost) | d = 0.3 - 0.8 (within) | Within-subjects | Monsell, 2003 (review) |
+| **Inhibition of return** | d = 0.3 - 0.6 (within) | Within-subjects | Klein, 2000 (review) |
+| **Attentional blink** (T2 deficit) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 (within) | Within-subjects | Dux & Marois, 2009 (review) |
+
+### 1.2 Memory
+
+| Paradigm / Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Design | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Working memory load effect** (e.g., 2-back vs. 0-back RT) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 (within) | Within-subjects | Brysbaert, 2019; Owen et al., 2005 |
+| **Serial position effect** (primacy/recency) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 (within) | Within-subjects | Murdock, 1962; Howard & Kahana, 1999 |
+| **Levels of processing** (deep vs. shallow encoding) | d = 0.5 - 1.2 (within) | Within-subjects | Craik & Lockhart, 1972; meta-analytic range in Brysbaert, 2019 |
+| **Testing effect** (retrieval practice vs. restudy) | d = 0.5 - 0.7 | Within/Between | Rowland, 2014 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Spacing effect** | d = 0.3 - 0.5 | Within/Between | Cepeda et al., 2006 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Generation effect** | d = 0.4 - 0.8 (within) | Within-subjects | Bertsch et al., 2007 (meta-analysis) |
+| **False memory (DRM paradigm)** | d = 0.8 - 1.5 (within) | Within-subjects | Gallo, 2010 (review) |
+
+### 1.3 Language and Reading
+
+| Paradigm / Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Design | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Semantic priming** (lexical decision) | d = 0.3 - 0.8 (within) | Within-subjects | Lucas, 2000 (meta-analysis); McNamara, 2005 |
+| **Frequency effect** (high vs. low word frequency) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 (within) | Within-subjects | Brysbaert, 2019 |
+| **Masked priming** (repetition) | d = 0.3 - 0.6 (within) | Within-subjects | Bodner & Masson, 2003; Van den Bussche et al., 2009 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Sentence context effect** (predictable vs. unpredictable) | d = 0.5 - 1.2 (within) | Within-subjects | Staub & Clifton, 2006 (review) |
+| **Syntactic garden path effect** | d = 0.3 - 0.8 (within) | Within-subjects | Van Gompel et al., 2005; Sturt, 2007 |
+| **Bilingual disadvantage** (picture naming latency) | d = 0.2 - 0.5 | Between-groups | Ivanova & Costa, 2008 |
+
+### 1.4 Perception and Psychophysics
+
+| Paradigm / Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Design | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Visual search (feature pop-out)** | d = 1.0 - 2.0+ (within) | Within-subjects | Wolfe, 1998 (review) |
+| **Visual search (conjunction, set-size effect)** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 (within) | Within-subjects | Wolfe, 1998 (review) |
+| **Change blindness** (detection difference by condition) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 (within) | Within-subjects | Rensink, 2002 (review) |
+| **Multisensory integration** (race model violation) | d = 0.3 - 0.8 (within) | Within-subjects | Colonius & Diederich, 2006 |
+| **Motion aftereffect duration** | d = 0.5 - 1.5 (within) | Within-subjects | Mather et al., 2008 |
+| **Perceptual learning** (pre-post improvement) | d = 0.5 - 1.5 (within) | Within-subjects | Dosher & Lu, 2017 (review) |
+
+### 1.5 Aging and Lifespan Effects
+
+| Paradigm / Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Design | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Age-related slowing** (general RT difference, old vs. young) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Between-groups | Verhaeghen & Cerella, 2002 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Age-related WM decline** | d = 0.5 - 0.8 | Between-groups | Bopp & Verhaeghen, 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Age-related episodic memory decline** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Between-groups | Old & Naveh-Benjamin, 2008 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Age-related inhibition deficit** (Stroop age difference) | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Between-groups | Verhaeghen & De Meersman, 1998 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Cognitive training transfer** (near transfer) | d = 0.2 - 0.4 | Between-groups | Melby-Lervag et al., 2016 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Cognitive training transfer** (far transfer) | d = 0.0 - 0.2 | Between-groups | Sala & Gobet, 2019 (meta-analysis) |
+
+---
+
+## 2. EEG / ERP
+
+### 2.1 Major ERP Components
+
+| Component / Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Typical Measurement | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **N400** (semantic violation vs. congruent) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 | Mean amplitude, 300-500 ms, centroparietal | Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 (review); Boudewyn et al., 2018 |
+| **N400** (semantic priming, subtle) | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Mean amplitude, 300-500 ms | Lau et al., 2008 (meta-analysis) |
+| **P300 / P3b** (oddball, target vs. standard) | d = 1.0 - 2.0+ | Mean amplitude, 300-600 ms, parietal | Polich, 2007 (review) |
+| **P3a** (novelty response) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Mean amplitude, 250-400 ms, frontocentral | Polich, 2007 (review) |
+| **ERN** (error-related negativity: error vs. correct) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 | Peak amplitude, 0-100 ms post-response, FCz | Gehring et al., 2012 (review); Clayson et al., 2019 |
+| **Pe** (error positivity: error vs. correct) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Mean amplitude, 200-400 ms post-response, Pz | Overbeek et al., 2005 (review) |
+| **MMN** (mismatch negativity: deviant vs. standard) | d = 0.5 - 1.5 | Mean amplitude, 150-250 ms, frontocentral | Naatanen et al., 2007 (review) |
+| **N170** (face vs. non-face) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 | Peak amplitude, 130-200 ms, occipitotemporal | Rossion & Jacques, 2011 (review) |
+| **LPP** (late positive potential, emotional vs. neutral) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Mean amplitude, 400-700 ms, centroparietal | Hajcak et al., 2010 (review) |
+| **N2pc** (attention lateralization) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Contralateral - ipsilateral, 200-300 ms | Luck, 2012 (review) |
+| **CDA/SPCN** (WM load, set-size difference) | d = 0.5 - 1.2 | Contralateral - ipsilateral, 400-900 ms | Luria et al., 2016 (review) |
+
+### 2.2 EEG Frequency / Oscillatory Effects
+
+| Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d or r) | Frequency Band | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Alpha power decrease** (eyes open vs. closed) | d = 1.0 - 2.0+ | 8-13 Hz | Klimesch, 1999 (review) |
+| **Alpha desynchronization** (task vs. rest) | d = 0.5 - 1.5 | 8-13 Hz | Pfurtscheller & Lopes da Silva, 1999 |
+| **Theta power increase** (WM load) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | 4-8 Hz | Gevins et al., 1997; Jensen & Tesche, 2002 |
+| **Frontal theta** (conflict/error monitoring) | d = 0.3 - 0.8 | 4-8 Hz | Cavanagh & Frank, 2014 (review) |
+| **Gamma power** (perception/binding) | d = 0.3 - 0.8 | 30-100 Hz | Tallon-Baudry & Bertrand, 1999 (review) |
+| **Beta desynchronization** (motor preparation) | d = 0.5 - 1.5 | 13-30 Hz | Pfurtscheller & Lopes da Silva, 1999 |
+
+### 2.3 ERP Individual Differences and Group Comparisons
+
+| Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| **ERN amplitude: anxiety high vs. low** | d = 0.3 - 0.5 | Moser et al., 2013 (meta-analysis) |
+| **P300 amplitude: ADHD vs. control** | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Barry et al., 2003 (meta-analysis) |
+| **MMN amplitude: schizophrenia vs. control** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Umbricht & Krljes, 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **N400: age-related difference** | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Kutas & Iragui, 1998; Wlotko et al., 2010 |
+| **P300 latency: aging (young vs. old)** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Polich, 1996 (review) |
+
+---
+
+## 3. fMRI
+
+### 3.1 Sensory and Motor Activation
+
+| Contrast | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Region | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Visual stimulation vs. rest** | d = 1.5 - 3.0+ | Primary visual cortex (V1) | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| **Auditory stimulation vs. rest** | d = 1.0 - 2.5+ | Primary auditory cortex (A1) | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| **Motor execution (finger tap) vs. rest** | d = 1.0 - 2.5+ | Primary motor cortex (M1) | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| **Face vs. house/object** (FFA) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 | Fusiform face area | Kanwisher & Yovel, 2006 |
+| **Place vs. face/object** (PPA) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 | Parahippocampal place area | Epstein & Kanwisher, 1998 |
+| **Body vs. object** (EBA) | d = 0.5 - 1.2 | Extrastriate body area | Downing et al., 2001 |
+
+### 3.2 Higher Cognitive Processes
+
+| Contrast | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Region | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Working memory (2-back vs. 0-back)** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Dorsolateral PFC, parietal | Owen et al., 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Inhibitory control (Stop-signal / Go-NoGo)** | d = 0.4 - 0.8 | Right IFG, pre-SMA | Aron et al., 2014 (review); Swick et al., 2011 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Cognitive conflict (Stroop incongruent > congruent)** | d = 0.3 - 0.8 | ACC, DLPFC | Laird et al., 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Emotional vs. neutral stimuli** | d = 0.3 - 0.8 | Amygdala | Sergerie et al., 2008 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Reward vs. no reward** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Ventral striatum | Bartra et al., 2013 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Episodic memory encoding (subsequent memory effect)** | d = 0.3 - 0.8 | Hippocampus, PFC | Kim, 2011 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Language (sentence vs. word list)** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Left IFG, temporal cortex | Fedorenko et al., 2010 |
+| **Theory of mind (mental vs. physical)** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | TPJ, mPFC | Schurz et al., 2014 (meta-analysis) |
+
+### 3.3 Individual Differences and Brain-Behavior Associations
+
+| Measure | Effect Size (r or d) | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Brain-behavior correlation (general)** | r = 0.10 - 0.20 (inflated in small samples) | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| **Brain structure-cognition correlation** | r = 0.10 - 0.20 | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| **Functional connectivity-behavior correlation** | r = 0.05 - 0.15 | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| **Test-retest reliability of task fMRI** | ICC = 0.30 - 0.60 (moderate) | Elliott et al., 2020 |
+| **Test-retest reliability of resting-state FC** | ICC = 0.40 - 0.70 (moderate-good) | Noble et al., 2019 |
+
+> **Critical note**: Marek et al. (2022) demonstrated in the ABCD dataset (N ≈ 4,000) that brain-behavior associations are typically r < 0.16, and that studies with N < 100 produce grossly inflated and unreliable estimates. For brain-wide association studies (BWAS), N = 1,000-2,000+ is recommended.
+
+### 3.4 Functional Connectivity
+
+| Contrast | Effect Size (Cohen's d or r) | Network | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Default mode network (task vs. rest)** | d = 0.5 - 1.5 (deactivation) | DMN (mPFC, PCC, angular gyrus) | Raichle, 2015 (review) |
+| **Task-positive vs. DMN anticorrelation** | r = -0.2 to -0.5 | DMN vs. frontoparietal | Fox et al., 2005 |
+| **Connectivity change with cognitive load** | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Frontoparietal network | Cole et al., 2013 |
+| **Clinical group FC differences** | d = 0.2 - 0.5 | Variable | Deco & Kringelbach, 2014 |
+
+---
+
+## 4. Clinical and Developmental Populations
+
+### 4.1 Psychiatric Disorders (Patient vs. Control)
+
+| Disorder / Measure | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Depression: cognitive bias (negative attention)** | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Peckham et al., 2010 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Depression: executive function deficits** | d = 0.3 - 0.5 | Snyder, 2013 (meta-analysis) |
+| **ADHD: inhibitory control deficits** | d = 0.4 - 0.7 | Willcutt et al., 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **ADHD: working memory deficits** | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Martinussen et al., 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Schizophrenia: general cognitive deficit** | d = 0.8 - 1.5 | Heinrichs & Zakzanis, 1998 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Schizophrenia: WM deficit** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Forbes et al., 2009 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Anxiety: threat bias (dot-probe)** | d = 0.2 - 0.5 | Bar-Haim et al., 2007 (meta-analysis) |
+| **ASD: facial emotion recognition deficit** | d = 0.4 - 0.8 | Uljarevic & Hamilton, 2013 (meta-analysis) |
+| **ASD: theory of mind deficit** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Chung et al., 2014 (meta-analysis) |
+| **OCD: inhibitory control deficit** | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | Abramovitch et al., 2013 (meta-analysis) |
+
+### 4.2 Neurological Conditions
+
+| Condition / Measure | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Mild TBI: processing speed** | d = 0.2 - 0.4 | Belanger et al., 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Mild TBI: memory** | d = 0.2 - 0.5 | Belanger et al., 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Alzheimer's (early): episodic memory** | d = 1.5 - 3.0 | Backman et al., 2005 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Parkinson's: executive function** | d = 0.3 - 0.7 | Kudlicka et al., 2011 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Stroke (left hemisphere): language deficits** | d = 0.5 - 2.0+ (highly variable) | Lazar et al., 2010 |
+| **Epilepsy (TLE): memory deficits** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Hoppe et al., 2007 (meta-analysis) |
+
+### 4.3 Developmental Effects
+
+| Effect | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Age Range | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Inhibitory control improvement** (childhood to adolescence) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | 5-15 years | Best & Miller, 2010 (review) |
+| **Working memory growth** (childhood) | d = 0.5 - 1.0 per 2-year span | 5-15 years | Gathercole et al., 2004 |
+| **Processing speed increase** (childhood to adolescence) | d = 0.5 - 1.5 | 6-18 years | Kail & Salthouse, 1994 |
+| **Theory of mind development** (false belief, pass vs. fail) | d = 0.8 - 1.5 | 3-5 years | Wellman et al., 2001 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Adolescent risk-taking** (vs. adults) | d = 0.3 - 0.6 | 13-17 vs. 25+ years | Defoe et al., 2015 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Reading intervention effectiveness** | d = 0.3 - 0.7 | 5-12 years | Galuschka et al., 2014 (meta-analysis) |
+
+### 4.4 Pharmacological / Intervention Effects
+
+| Intervention / Measure | Effect Size (Cohen's d) | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms** | d = 0.8 - 1.0 | Faraone & Buitelaar, 2010 (meta-analysis) |
+| **SSRIs on depression** (vs. placebo) | d = 0.3 - 0.5 | Cipriani et al., 2018 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Caffeine on RT** | d = 0.3 - 0.5 | McLellan et al., 2016 (review) |
+| **CBT for anxiety** | d = 0.5 - 1.0 | Hofmann & Smits, 2008 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Cognitive remediation in schizophrenia** | d = 0.3 - 0.5 | Wykes et al., 2011 (meta-analysis) |
+| **Neurofeedback for ADHD** | d = 0.2 - 0.4 (blinded) | Cortese et al., 2016 (meta-analysis) |
+
+---
+
+## 5. Cross-Cutting Notes
+
+### Effect Size Inflation in Small Samples
+
+Published effect sizes from small-sample studies are systematically inflated due to:
+- **Publication bias**: Only significant results are published, selecting for overestimates (Button et al., 2013)
+- **Researcher degrees of freedom**: Flexible analysis choices inflate effects (Simmons et al., 2011)
+- **Winner's curse**: The first study to find a significant effect overestimates its magnitude (Ioannidis, 2008)
+
+**Recommendation**: When using effect sizes from individual small-N studies (N < 50), apply a skeptical prior and consider using 50-75% of the reported effect size for power calculations (Perugini et al., 2014).
+
+### Converting Between Effect Size Metrics
+
+| From | To | Formula | Reference |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Cohen's d | r | r = d / sqrt(d² + 4) | Borenstein et al., 2009 |
+| r | Cohen's d | d = 2r / sqrt(1 - r²) | Borenstein et al., 2009 |
+| Partial eta² | Cohen's d | d = 2 * sqrt(eta² / (1 - eta²)) | Lakens, 2013 |
+| Cohen's d | Hedge's g | g = d * (1 - 3/(4*(n1+n2) - 9)) | Hedges, 1981 |
+| Odds ratio | Cohen's d | d = ln(OR) * sqrt(3) / pi | Borenstein et al., 2009 |
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- Abramovitch, A., et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of intelligence and neuropsychological functioning in OCD. *Clinical Psychology Review*, 33(8), 1163-1171.
+- Aron, A. R., et al. (2014). Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 18(4), 177-185.
+- Backman, L., et al. (2005). Cognitive impairment in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. *Brain*, 128(9), 2026-2044.
+- Bar-Haim, Y., et al. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals. *Psychological Bulletin*, 133(1), 1-24.
+- Barry, R. J., et al. (2003). A review of electrophysiology in ADHD: II. Event-related potentials. *Clinical Neurophysiology*, 114(2), 184-198.
+- Bartra, O., et al. (2013). The valuation system: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. *NeuroImage*, 76, 412-427.
+- Belanger, H. G., et al. (2005). Factors moderating neuropsychological outcomes following mild TBI. *Neuropsychology Review*, 15(2), 49-75.
+- Bertsch, S., et al. (2007). The generation effect: A meta-analytic review. *Memory & Cognition*, 35(2), 201-210.
+- Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. *Child Development*, 81(6), 1641-1660.
+- Bodner, G. E., & Masson, M. E. (2003). Beyond spreading activation. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 10(3), 645-652.
+- Bopp, K. L., & Verhaeghen, P. (2005). Aging and verbal memory span. *Journals of Gerontology: Series B*, 60(5), P223-P233.
+- Borenstein, M., et al. (2009). *Introduction to Meta-Analysis*. Wiley.
+- Boudewyn, M. A., et al. (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., et al. (2013). Power failure. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 14(5), 365-376.
+- Cavanagh, J. F., & Frank, M. J. (2014). Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 18(8), 414-421.
+- Cepeda, N. J., et al. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks. *Psychological Bulletin*, 132(3), 354-380.
+- Chung, Y. S., et al. (2014). Social cognition in ASD: A meta-analytic review. *Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders*, 8(5), 477-486.
+- Cipriani, A., et al. (2018). Comparative efficacy of antidepressants. *The Lancet*, 391(10128), 1357-1366.
+- Clayson, P. E., et al. (2019). Methodological reporting behavior and statistical power in ERP studies. *Psychophysiology*, 56(11), e13437.
+- Cole, M. W., et al. (2013). Global connectivity of prefrontal cortex predicts cognitive control and intelligence. *Journal of Neuroscience*, 33(18), 8988-8999.
+- Colonius, H., & Diederich, A. (2006). The race model inequality. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 13(2), 248-255.
+- Cortese, S., et al. (2016). Neurofeedback for ADHD: A meta-analysis. *Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry*, 55(6), 444-455.
+- Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior*, 11(6), 671-684.
+- Deco, G., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2014). Great expectations: Using whole-brain computational connectomics. *Neuron*, 84(5), 892-905.
+- Defoe, I. N., et al. (2015). A meta-analysis on age differences in risky decision making. *Psychological Bulletin*, 141(1), 48-84.
+- Dosher, B., & Lu, Z.-L. (2017). Visual perceptual learning and models. *Annual Review of Vision Science*, 3, 343-363.
+- Downing, P. E., et al. (2001). A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. *Science*, 293(5539), 2470-2473.
+- Dux, P. E., & Marois, R. (2009). The attentional blink: A review. *Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics*, 71(8), 1683-1700.
+- Elliott, M. L., et al. (2020). What is the test-retest reliability of common task-functional MRI measures? *Psychological Science*, 31(7), 792-806.
+- Epstein, R., & Kanwisher, N. (1998). A cortical representation of the local visual environment. *Nature*, 392(6676), 598-601.
+- Faraone, S. V., & Buitelaar, J. (2010). Comparing the efficacy of stimulants for ADHD in children and adolescents. *European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry*, 19(4), 353-364.
+- Fedorenko, E., et al. (2010). New method for fMRI investigations of language. *Journal of Neurophysiology*, 104(2), 1177-1194.
+- Forbes, N. F., et al. (2009). Working memory in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis. *Psychological Medicine*, 39(6), 889-905.
+- Fox, M. D., et al. (2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. *PNAS*, 102(27), 9673-9678.
+- Gallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs. *Memory & Cognition*, 38(8), 1022-1028.
+- Galuschka, K., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities. *PLoS ONE*, 9(2), e89900.
+- Gathercole, S. E., et al. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. *Developmental Psychology*, 40(2), 177-190.
+- Gehring, W. J., et al. (2012). The error-related negativity (ERN/Ne). In *The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components*.
+- Gevins, A., et al. (1997). High-resolution EEG mapping of cortical activation related to working memory. *Cerebral Cortex*, 7(4), 374-385.
+- Hajcak, G., et al. (2010). The late positive potential. In *The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components*.
+- Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size. *JASA*, 76(375), 573-580.
+- Heinrichs, R. W., & Zakzanis, K. K. (1998). Neurocognitive deficit in schizophrenia: A quantitative review. *Neuropsychology*, 12(3), 426-445.
+- Hofmann, S. G., & Smits, J. A. (2008). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. *JCCP*, 76(2), 278-286.
+- Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. *Acta Psychologica*, 136(2), 189-202.
+- Hoppe, C., et al. (2007). Epilepsy: Accuracy of patient seizure counts. *Archives of Neurology*, 64(11), 1595-1599.
+- Howard, M. W., & Kahana, M. J. (1999). Contextual variability and serial position effects in free recall. *JEP:LMC*, 25(4), 923-941.
+- Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. *Epidemiology*, 19(5), 640-648.
+- Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production? *Acta Psychologica*, 127(2), 277-288.
+- Jensen, O., & Tesche, C. D. (2002). Frontal theta activity in humans increases with memory load. *European Journal of Neuroscience*, 15(8), 1395-1399.
+- Kail, R., & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity. *Acta Psychologica*, 86(2-3), 199-225.
+- Kanwisher, N., & Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area. *Current Opinion in Neurobiology*, 16(2), 166-170.
+- Kiesel, A., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching. *Psychological Bulletin*, 136(5), 849-874.
+- Kim, H. (2011). Neural activity that predicts subsequent memory and forgetting. *NeuroImage*, 54(3), 2446-2461.
+- Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 4(4), 138-147.
+- Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance. *Brain Research Reviews*, 29(2-3), 169-195.
+- Kudlicka, A., et al. (2011). Executive function and Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis. *Movement Disorders*, 26(13), 2305-2315.
+- Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 62, 621-647.
+- Kutas, M., & Iragui, V. (1998). The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. *Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology*, 108(5), 456-471.
+- Laird, A. R., et al. (2005). A comparison of label-based review and ALE meta-analysis in the Stroop task. *Human Brain Mapping*, 25(1), 6-21.
+- Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 4, 863.
+- Lau, E. F., et al. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 9(12), 920-933.
+- Lazar, R. M., et al. (2010). Neuroimaging of functional recovery. In *Brain Mapping: From Neural Basis of Cognition to Surgical Applications*.
+- Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance. *JEP:HPP*, 21(4), 819-847.
+- Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 7(4), 618-630.
+- Luck, S. J. (2012). Electrophysiological correlates of the focusing of attention within complex visual scenes. In *Cognitive Electrophysiology of Attention*.
+- Luck, S. J. (2014). *An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique* (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
+- Luria, R., et al. (2016). The contralateral delay activity as a neural measure of visual working memory. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 62, 100-108.
+- MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. *Psychological Bulletin*, 109(2), 163-203.
+- Marek, S., et al. (2022). Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals. *Nature*, 603, 654-660.
+- Martinussen, R., et al. (2005). A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in children with ADHD. *JAACAP*, 44(4), 377-384.
+- Mather, G., et al. (2008). The motion aftereffect: A modern perspective. MIT Press.
+- McLellan, T. M., et al. (2016). A review of caffeine's effects on cognitive, physical and occupational performance. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 71, 294-312.
+- McNamara, T. P. (2005). *Semantic Priming*. Psychology Press.
+- Melby-Lervag, M., et al. (2016). Working memory training does not improve measures of intelligence or other measures of "far transfer." *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 11(4), 512-534.
+- Mills, K. L., & Tamnes, C. K. (2014). Methods and considerations for longitudinal structural brain imaging analysis across development. *Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience*, 9, 172-190.
+- Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 7(3), 134-140.
+- Moser, J. S., et al. (2013). The ERN as a biomarker for anxiety: A meta-analysis. *Biological Psychology*, 94(2), 311-320.
+- Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. *JEP*, 64(5), 482-488.
+- Naatanen, R., et al. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing. *Clinical Neurophysiology*, 118(12), 2544-2590.
+- Noble, S., et al. (2019). A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity. *NeuroImage*, 203, 116157.
+- Old, S. R., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2008). Differential effects of age on item and associative measures of memory. *Psychology and Aging*, 23(1), 104-118.
+- Overbeek, T. J., et al. (2005). Dissociable components of error processing. *Journal of Psychophysiology*, 19(4), 319-329.
+- Owen, A. M., et al. (2005). N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis. *Human Brain Mapping*, 25(1), 46-59.
+- Peckham, A. D., et al. (2010). A meta-analysis of the magnitude of biased attention in depression. *Depression and Anxiety*, 27(12), 1135-1142.
+- Perugini, M., et al. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 9(3), 319-332.
+- Pfurtscheller, G., & Lopes da Silva, F. H. (1999). Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization. *Clinical Neurophysiology*, 110(11), 1842-1857.
+- Polich, J. (1996). Meta-analysis of P300 normative aging studies. *Psychophysiology*, 33(4), 334-353.
+- Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. *Clinical Neurophysiology*, 118(10), 2128-2148.
+- Poldrack, R. A., et al. (2017). Scanning the horizon. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 18(2), 115-126.
+- Raichle, M. E. (2015). The brain's default mode network. *Annual Review of Neuroscience*, 38, 433-447.
+- Rensink, R. A. (2002). Change detection. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 53(1), 245-277.
+- Rossion, B., & Jacques, C. (2011). The N170: Understanding the time-course of face perception. In *The Oxford Handbook of ERP Components*.
+- Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2019). A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 26(2), 452-467.
+- Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review. *Psychological Bulletin*, 140(6), 1432-1463.
+- Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019). Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 23(1), 9-20.
+- Schurz, M., et al. (2014). Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 42, 9-34.
+- Sergerie, K., et al. (2008). The role of the amygdala in emotional processing: A quantitative meta-analysis. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 32(4), 811-830.
+- Simmons, J. P., et al. (2011). False-positive psychology. *Psychological Science*, 22(11), 1359-1366.
+- Snyder, H. R. (2013). Major depressive disorder is associated with broad impairments on neuropsychological measures of executive function. *Neuropsychology*, 27(2), 152-169.
+- Staub, A., & Clifton, C. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension. *Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 60(3), 209-219.
+- Sturt, P. (2007). Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. *Cognition*, 105(2), 477-488.
+- Swick, D., et al. (2011). Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? *NeuroImage*, 56(3), 1655-1665.
+- Tallon-Baudry, C., & Bertrand, O. (1999). Oscillatory gamma activity in humans. *International Journal of Psychophysiology*, 31(3), 183-199.
+- Uljarevic, M., & Hamilton, A. (2013). Recognition of emotions in autism: A formal meta-analysis. *Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders*, 43(7), 1517-1526.
+- Umbricht, D., & Krljes, S. (2005). Mismatch negativity in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis. *Schizophrenia Research*, 76(1), 1-23.
+- Van den Bussche, E., et al. (2009). Mechanisms of masked priming: A meta-analysis. *Psychological Bulletin*, 135(3), 452-477.
+- Van Gompel, R. P. G., et al. (2005). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In *Reanalysis in Sentence Processing*.
+- Verhaeghen, P., & Cerella, J. (2002). Aging, executive control, and attention: A review. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 26(7), 849-857.
+- Verhaeghen, P., & De Meersman, L. (1998). Age and the Stroop effect: A meta-analysis. *Psychology and Aging*, 13(1), 120-126.
+- Wellman, H. M., et al. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory of mind development: The truth about false belief. *Child Development*, 72(3), 655-684.
+- Willcutt, E. G., et al. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of ADHD: A meta-analytic review. *Biological Psychiatry*, 57(11), 1336-1346.
+- Wlotko, E. W., et al. (2010). The role of context in language processing and aging. *Psychology and Aging*, 25(4), 903-916.
+- Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In *Attention*. Psychology Press.
+- Wykes, T., et al. (2011). A meta-analysis of cognitive remediation for schizophrenia. *American Journal of Psychiatry*, 168(5), 472-485.