@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/14_Writing/markdown-report-writing/references/templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+# Markdown Report Templates (Annotated)
+
+## 1. Project Report Template
+
+```md
+---
+title: Project Name
+author: Team / Agent
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+tags: [project, report]
+---
+
+# Project Name
+
+> One-line summary: this report covers project background, current progress, key risks, and next steps.
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+- Background:
+- Current phase:
+- Completed:
+- Key risks:
+- Next steps:
+
+## Project Background
+
+### Business Context
+
+### Problem Definition
+
+### Success Criteria
+
+## Project Scope
+
+### In Scope
+
+- [x] Feature A
+- [x] Feature B
+- [ ] Feature C
+
+### Out of Scope
+
+- Item 1
+- Item 2
+
+## Architecture & Design
+
+![System architecture diagram](./assets/fig-system.svg)
+
+*Figure: Overall system architecture.*
+
+### Core Modules
+
+| Module | Responsibility | Input | Output |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Data Layer | Data ingestion | Raw data | Standardized data |
+| Service Layer | Analysis pipeline | Standardized data | Intermediate results |
+| Presentation Layer | Output rendering | Intermediate results | Reports & charts |
+
+### Key Workflow
+
+​```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+    A[Requirements] --> B[Design]
+    B --> C[Implementation]
+    C --> D[Testing]
+    D --> E[Delivery & Review]
+​```
+
+## Current Progress
+
+| Item | Owner | Status | Notes |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Requirements confirmed | @owner | Complete | Frozen |
+| Data integration | @owner | In Progress | Awaiting API |
+| Report template | @owner | Complete | Mermaid + footnotes |
+| Release prep | @owner | Not Started | Depends on sign-off |
+
+## Risks & Mitigation
+
+| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Data inconsistency | High | Medium | Field mapping checks |
+| Broken asset links | Medium | Medium | Relative paths + CI validation |
+| Scope creep | Medium | High | Change freeze window |
+
+## Conclusion & Next Steps
+
+### Conclusion
+
+### Next Actions
+
+- [ ] Complete integration
+- [ ] Update diagrams
+- [ ] Validate links
+- [ ] Publish v1 report
+
+## Appendix
+
+- [Detailed design doc](./docs/design.md)
+- [Data dictionary](./docs/data-dictionary.md)
+- [System architecture SVG](./assets/fig-system.svg)
+
+## Footnotes
+
+Example terminology[^scope].
+
+[^scope]: Scope freeze means no new high-impact requirements are introduced past the agreed cutoff date.
+```
+
+---
+
+## 2. Experiment Report Template
+
+```md
+---
+title: Experiment Name
+author: Researcher / Agent
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+tags: [experiment, report]
+---
+
+# Experiment Name
+
+> One-line summary: what was tested, with what method, and what was found.
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+- Hypothesis:
+- Method:
+- Key results:
+- Conclusion:
+
+## Research Questions & Hypotheses
+
+### Research Question
+
+### Hypothesis
+
+## Experimental Setup
+
+### Environment
+
+| Item | Value |
+|---|---|
+| OS | |
+| Software version | |
+| Dataset | |
+| Time range | |
+
+### Variables
+
+| Type | Variable | Description |
+|---|---|---|
+| Independent | | |
+| Dependent | | |
+| Controlled | | |
+
+## Procedure
+
+1. Data preparation
+2. Parameter configuration
+3. Experiment execution
+4. Result recording
+5. Statistical analysis
+
+​```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    A[Data Prep] --> B[Execution]
+    B --> C[Recording]
+    C --> D[Analysis]
+    D --> E[Conclusion]
+​```
+
+## Results
+
+### Results Table
+
+| Method | Metric A | Metric B | Notes |
+|---|---:|---:|---|
+| Baseline | | | |
+| Method-1 | | | |
+| Method-2 | | | |
+
+### Charts
+
+![Results comparison chart](./assets/fig-results.svg)
+
+*Figure: Results comparison across methods.*
+
+## Discussion
+
+### Interpretation
+
+### Error Sources
+
+### Limitations
+
+## Reproducibility
+
+- [Experiment script](./code/run.py)
+- [Config file](./configs/exp.yaml)
+- [Raw results](./results/raw.csv)
+
+## Conclusion
+
+## Footnotes
+
+Terminology[^metric].
+
+[^metric]: Metric A is the primary evaluation metric; higher is better.
+```
+
+---
+
+## 3. README Template
+
+```md
+# Project Name
+
+> One-line description of the problem this solves and its core value.
+
+[Quick Start](#quick-start) · [Docs](./docs/index.md) · [Changelog](./CHANGELOG.md) · [License](./LICENSE)
+
+## About
+
+What this project is, who it's for, and how it differs from alternatives.
+
+## Features
+
+- Feature A
+- Feature B
+- Feature C
+
+## Project Structure
+
+| Path | Description |
+|---|---|
+| `src/` | Core source code |
+| `docs/` | Detailed documentation |
+| `assets/` | Images and diagrams |
+| `examples/` | Example inputs and outputs |
+
+## Quick Start
+
+### Installation
+
+​```bash
+# install command
+​```
+
+### Usage
+
+​```bash
+# run command
+​```
+
+### Example
+
+​```bash
+# example command
+​```
+
+## How It Works
+
+​```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+    A[Install] --> B[Configure]
+    B --> C[Run]
+    C --> D[View Results]
+​```
+
+### Input & Output
+
+| Type | Path | Description |
+|---|---|---|
+| Input | `examples/input.json` | Sample input |
+| Output | `examples/output.md` | Sample output |
+
+## Documentation
+
+- [User Guide](./docs/user-guide.md)
+- [Developer Guide](./docs/developer-guide.md)
+- [FAQ](./docs/faq.md)
+
+## Roadmap
+
+- [ ] Release v1.0
+- [ ] Plugin system
+- [ ] Documentation site
+
+## Contributing
+
+Issues and pull requests welcome. Please read [CONTRIBUTING.md](./CONTRIBUTING.md) first.
+
+## License
+
+This project is licensed under [MIT License](./LICENSE).
+```

package/skills/15_Others/neuroimaging-power-guide/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,324 @@
+---
+name: "neuroimaging-power-guide"
+description: "Sample-size planning for fMRI/EEG studies using effect-size benchmarks and simulation-based power"
+domain: "cross-cutting-methodology"
+version: "1.0.0"
+authors:
+ - "awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills contributors"
+papers:
+ - "Button et al., 2013"
+ - "Poldrack et al., 2017"
+ - "Marek et al., 2022"
+ - "Mumford & Nichols, 2008"
+ - "Boudewyn et al., 2018"
+ - "Desmond & Glover, 2002"
+ - "Elliott et al., 2020"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+ recommended:
+ - cogsci-power-analysis
+ - fmri-glm-analysis-guide
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# Neuroimaging Power Guide
+
+## Purpose
+
+Statistical power in neuroimaging is fundamentally different from power in behavioral research. The massive multiple comparisons problem (testing ~100,000 voxels simultaneously), spatial correlation structure, and non-standard test statistics mean that standard power formulas underestimate required sample sizes. Meanwhile, the field has historically been severely underpowered: the median fMRI study has only ~20% power to detect a typical effect (Button et al., 2013).
+
+A competent programmer without neuroimaging training would apply standard power calculations (e.g., G*Power for a t-test) without accounting for multiple comparison correction, would not know typical effect sizes in neuroimaging, and would dramatically underestimate the sample sizes needed. This skill encodes the domain-specific knowledge for neuroimaging power analysis.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Planning sample size for a new fMRI, EEG, or MEG study
+- Estimating power for grant applications or registered reports
+- Determining whether a published study was adequately powered
+- Choosing between ROI-based and whole-brain analysis based on power constraints
+- Evaluating the reliability implications of sample size choices
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** — What specific question is this analysis/paradigm addressing?
+2. **Justify the method choice** — Why is this approach appropriate? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** — What results would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** — What does this method assume? 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).
+
+## Why Neuroimaging Power Is Different
+
+Standard power analysis assumes a single statistical test. Neuroimaging involves:
+
+| Challenge | Impact on Power | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| Massive multiple comparisons | ~100,000 voxels tested; correction reduces sensitivity by orders of magnitude | Nichols & Hayasaka, 2003 |
+| Spatial smoothness | Adjacent voxels are correlated, reducing effective number of independent tests but complicating power calculation | Worsley et al., 1996 |
+| Multi-level inference | Subject-level estimation + group-level test; both levels contribute noise | Mumford & Nichols, 2008 |
+| Effect size variability | Effects vary across voxels, regions, and subjects; no single "effect size" characterizes a study | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| Threshold-dependent power | Power depends heavily on the statistical threshold (corrected vs. uncorrected) and correction method | Hayasaka et al., 2007 |
+
+**Key implication**: A standard G*Power calculation for a two-sample t-test will dramatically overestimate the power of a whole-brain fMRI analysis because it ignores multiple comparison correction (Mumford & Nichols, 2008).
+
+## Typical Effect Sizes in Neuroimaging
+
+### fMRI Effect Sizes
+
+| Analysis Type | Typical Effect Size | Unit | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Task activation (voxel-level) | Cohen's d = **0.5-1.0** | Standardized mean difference | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| Task activation (ROI-level) | Cohen's d = **0.5-1.5** | Standardized mean difference | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| Between-group difference (voxel) | Cohen's d = **0.3-0.8** | Standardized mean difference | Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| Functional connectivity (correlation) | r = **0.2-0.5** | Pearson correlation | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| Brain-behavior association | r = **0.1-0.3** | Pearson correlation | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| Brain-wide association (replicable) | r < **0.05** at N < 1000 | Pearson correlation | Marek et al., 2022 |
+
+**Critical finding**: Marek et al. (2022) demonstrated that brain-behavior correlations in typical neuroimaging samples (N < 100) are severely inflated. Replicable brain-behavior associations require **N > 2,000** for whole-brain analyses.
+
+### EEG/ERP Effect Sizes
+
+| Analysis Type | Typical Effect Size | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| ERP component amplitude (e.g., N400, P300) | Cohen's d = **0.3-0.8** | Boudewyn et al., 2018 |
+| ERP latency differences | Cohen's d = **0.2-0.5** | Luck, 2014 |
+| EEG oscillatory power | Cohen's d = **0.3-0.6** | Cohen, 2014 |
+| EEG connectivity (coherence/PLV) | Cohen's d = **0.2-0.5** | Cohen, 2014 |
+
+## Sample Size Benchmarks
+
+### fMRI Sample Size Recommendations
+
+| Design | Minimum N | Recommended N | Assumptions | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Within-subject task activation | **20** | **25-30** | Large effect (d > 0.8), lenient correction | Desmond & Glover, 2002 |
+| Between-group comparison (large effect, d = 0.8) | **20 per group** | **25-30 per group** | Whole-brain, cluster-corrected | Thirion et al., 2007 |
+| Between-group comparison (medium effect, d = 0.5) | **40 per group** | **50+ per group** | Whole-brain, cluster-corrected | Thirion et al., 2007; Poldrack et al., 2017 |
+| Resting-state individual differences | **25+** | **50+** (much more for replicability) | Depends on reliability of measure | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| Brain-behavior correlations | **100+** | **N > 2,000** for replicable whole-brain | Large-scale only | Marek et al., 2022 |
+| ROI-based analysis (a priori) | **15-20** | **25+** | Single ROI, no whole-brain correction | Desmond & Glover, 2002 |
+
+### EEG/ERP Sample Size Recommendations
+
+| Design | Minimum per Condition | Recommended per Condition | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| ERP trials per condition per subject | **30** | **40-60** | Boudewyn et al., 2018 |
+| ERP between-group (medium d = 0.5) | **34 per group** | **50+ per group** | Boudewyn et al., 2018 |
+| ERP within-subject (medium d = 0.5) | **25 subjects** | **30+ subjects** | Luck, 2014 |
+| Time-frequency analysis | **40 trials** | **60+ trials** | Cohen, 2014 |
+
+### Power at Common Sample Sizes
+
+| N (per group) | Power for d = 0.5 (uncorrected) | Power for d = 0.5 (corrected, whole-brain) | Power for d = 0.8 (corrected) |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 10 | ~26% | < 10% | ~25% |
+| 20 | ~50% | ~20% | ~50% |
+| 30 | ~70% | ~35% | ~70% |
+| 40 | ~82% | ~50% | ~85% |
+| 60 | ~94% | ~70% | ~95% |
+
+Values are approximate, based on simulations from Mumford & Nichols (2008) and Desmond & Glover (2002). Exact power depends on design, smoothness, effect spatial extent, and correction method.
+
+## Power Decision Tree
+
+```
+What type of analysis are you planning?
+ |
+ +-- Whole-brain voxelwise analysis
+ | |
+ | +-- Within-subject (one-sample t-test)
+ | | --> Minimum N = 20; aim for N = 25-30
+ | | (Desmond & Glover, 2002)
+ | |
+ | +-- Between-group comparison
+ | | |
+ | | +-- Large expected effect (d > 0.8)
+ | | | --> N = 20-25 per group (Thirion et al., 2007)
+ | | |
+ | | +-- Medium expected effect (d = 0.5)
+ | | | --> N = 40-50 per group (Poldrack et al., 2017)
+ | | |
+ | | +-- Small expected effect (d = 0.3)
+ | | --> N = 80+ per group; consider ROI approach
+ | |
+ | +-- Brain-behavior correlation
+ | --> N = 100+ minimum; N > 2,000 for replicability
+ | (Marek et al., 2022)
+ |
+ +-- ROI-based analysis (a priori regions)
+ | --> Use standard power formulas (G*Power) with expected
+ | effect size from literature or pilot data.
+ | No multiple comparison correction needed for single ROI.
+ | N = 15-30 typical for medium-large effects.
+ |
+ +-- ERP analysis
+ |
+ +-- Between-group
+ | --> 30-50 per group for medium effects
+ | (Boudewyn et al., 2018)
+ |
+ +-- Within-subject
+ --> 25-30 subjects, 30+ trials per condition
+ (Boudewyn et al., 2018; Luck, 2014)
+```
+
+## Simulation-Based Power Approaches
+
+### fMRIpower (Mumford & Nichols, 2008)
+
+Estimates power using pilot group-level activation maps:
+
+1. Run a pilot study (or use published results) to obtain group-level statistical maps
+2. Estimate effect sizes at each voxel from the pilot data
+3. Simulate new datasets with varying N by resampling from the estimated effect size and variance
+4. Apply the full statistical pipeline (including multiple comparison correction) to each simulation
+5. Power = proportion of simulations that detect the effect at a given ROI or voxel
+
+**Requirements**: Pilot data from at least **10-15 subjects** for stable variance estimates (Mumford & Nichols, 2008)
+
+### NeuroPowerTools (Durnez et al., 2016)
+
+Web-based tool for peak-based power estimation:
+
+1. Upload an unthresholded statistical map from a pilot or published study
+2. The tool fits a mixture model to the peak distribution (null + alternative)
+3. Estimates the proportion of truly active voxels and their average effect size
+4. Computes power for new studies with varying N and thresholds
+
+**Advantage**: Does not require individual subject data; can use published group maps
+**URL**: https://neuropowertools.org
+
+### Permutation-Based Power (Hayasaka et al., 2007)
+
+1. Generate simulated datasets under the alternative hypothesis using effect size maps from pilot data
+2. For each simulated dataset, run a full permutation test (5,000+ permutations)
+3. Compute power as the proportion of simulations in which the permutation test rejects the null
+
+**Advantage**: Fully nonparametric; accounts for the exact multiple comparison correction used
+**Disadvantage**: Computationally expensive (requires running thousands of permutation tests per power estimate)
+
+### PowerMap (Joyce & Hayasaka, 2012)
+
+Simulation-based power using parametric assumptions:
+
+1. Specify effect size map (from pilot data or assumed values)
+2. Specify noise model (based on residuals from pilot data)
+3. Simulate datasets with varying N
+4. Apply parametric statistical testing with specified correction method
+5. Estimate power at each voxel
+
+## Multiple Comparison Correction Impact on Power
+
+The choice of correction method dramatically affects required sample size:
+
+| Correction Method | Effective Alpha per Voxel | Relative Power | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| None (p < 0.001 uncorrected) | 0.001 | **Highest** (but invalid inference) | -- |
+| FDR q < 0.05 | ~0.0001-0.001 (data-dependent) | Moderate-High | Genovese et al., 2002 |
+| Cluster-based (CDT p < 0.001) | Depends on cluster size | Moderate-High for large effects | Eklund et al., 2016 |
+| Voxelwise FWE (RFT, p < 0.05) | ~0.00000005 | Low | Worsley et al., 1996 |
+| TFCE + permutation | Varies | Moderate | Smith & Nichols, 2009 |
+
+**Domain insight**: Switching from voxelwise FWE to cluster-based or FDR correction can increase power by **50-200%** for the same sample size, because these methods exploit the spatial extent of true activations (Nichols & Hayasaka, 2003).
+
+## Test-Retest Reliability and Power
+
+For individual differences designs (correlating brain measures with behavior), reliability of the brain measure is critical (Elliott et al., 2020):
+
+| Measure | Typical ICC | Implication | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Task fMRI activation (ROI) | **0.3-0.6** | Poor to moderate reliability | Elliott et al., 2020 |
+| Resting-state connectivity | **0.3-0.7** | Moderate reliability; depends on scan duration | Elliott et al., 2020 |
+| ERP amplitude | **0.5-0.8** | Moderate to good | Cassidy et al., 2012 |
+| EEG oscillatory power | **0.6-0.9** | Good to excellent | Cohen, 2014 |
+
+**Critical formula**: The maximum detectable correlation between brain and behavior is bounded by the reliabilities of both measures:
+
+```
+r_observed_max = r_true * sqrt(reliability_brain * reliability_behavior)
+```
+
+With brain ICC = 0.5 and behavior reliability = 0.8, even a true correlation of r = 0.5 would appear as r = 0.5 * sqrt(0.5 * 0.8) = **0.32** on average (Elliott et al., 2020). This attenuation means far larger samples are needed.
+
+**Recommendation**: For individual differences designs, collect longer scan sessions (at least **20-30 minutes** of resting-state data; Birn et al., 2013) or use multi-session data to improve reliability.
+
+## Practical Power Calculation Workflow
+
+### For a New fMRI Study
+
+1. **Define the primary analysis**: Whole-brain voxelwise or ROI-based?
+2. **Estimate effect size**:
+ - From pilot data (preferred): extract effect sizes from pilot activation maps
+ - From literature: find the most comparable published study; correct for publication bias by assuming the true effect is **~50-75%** of the published estimate (Button et al., 2013)
+ - From meta-analysis: use NeuroSynth or BrainMap to estimate typical activation strength
+3. **Choose the power analysis tool**:
+ - ROI-based: Standard power calculation (G*Power) using the estimated effect size at the ROI
+ - Whole-brain: fMRIpower, NeuroPowerTools, or simulation
+4. **Set target power**: **80%** (conventional) or **90%** (recommended for costly neuroimaging studies)
+5. **Account for attrition**: Add **10-20%** to planned N for participant exclusions due to excessive motion, incomplete data, or technical failures
+6. **Report**: Effect size source, power tool used, correction method, target power, final N
+
+### For a New EEG/ERP Study
+
+1. **Estimate effect size**: From pilot data or published ERP studies (see effect size table above)
+2. **Determine trial count**: At least **30 trials per condition** post-rejection (Boudewyn et al., 2018)
+3. **Plan for trial attrition**: Assume **20-30%** trial rejection rate; collect accordingly
+4. **Subject-level power**: Use G*Power with the estimated within- or between-subject effect size
+5. **Account for subject attrition**: Add **15-20%** for exclusions due to excessive artifacts
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Using uncorrected power estimates for whole-brain analyses**: A study with 80% power at p < 0.001 uncorrected has far less than 80% power after FWE or FDR correction (Mumford & Nichols, 2008)
+2. **Ignoring effect size inflation in pilot studies**: Small pilot studies produce inflated effect sizes due to the "winner's curse." Assume the true effect is **50-75%** of the pilot estimate (Button et al., 2013)
+3. **Applying behavioral power formulas to neuroimaging**: Standard t-test power calculations dramatically overestimate power for whole-brain analyses because they ignore multiple comparison correction
+4. **Not accounting for participant attrition**: In fMRI, **10-20%** of participants may be excluded due to motion, scanner artifacts, or incomplete data. Over-recruit accordingly
+5. **Ignoring reliability for individual differences**: Brain measures with ICC < 0.5 attenuate correlations, requiring much larger samples than traditional power analysis suggests (Elliott et al., 2020)
+6. **Assuming published sample sizes are adequate**: Most published fMRI studies are underpowered (median power ~20%; Button et al., 2013). Do not use published N as a benchmark
+7. **Neglecting the impact of design efficiency**: An optimized event-related design can be 2-3x more efficient than a suboptimal one (Dale, 1999), effectively increasing power without adding subjects
+
+## Minimum Reporting Checklist
+
+- [ ] Target effect size and its source (pilot data, literature, meta-analysis)
+- [ ] Effect size metric used (Cohen's d, r, partial eta-squared)
+- [ ] Power analysis method (analytical, simulation-based, tool used)
+- [ ] Target power level (typically 80% or 90%)
+- [ ] Statistical test assumed (one-sample t, two-sample t, correlation, ANOVA)
+- [ ] Multiple comparison correction method and parameters
+- [ ] Planned N and justification
+- [ ] Attrition allowance (expected exclusion rate)
+- [ ] For simulation-based: number of simulations, pilot data source, software
+- [ ] For reliability-dependent designs: reliability estimates and their source
+
+## References
+
+- Birn, R. M., Molloy, E. K., Patriat, R., et al. (2013). The effect of scan length on the reliability of resting-state fMRI connectivity estimates. *NeuroImage*, 83, 550-558.
+- 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.
+- Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., et al. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, 14(5), 365-376.
+- Cassidy, S. M., Robertson, I. H., & O'Connell, R. G. (2012). Retest reliability of event-related potentials: Evidence from a variety of paradigms. *Psychophysiology*, 49(5), 659-664.
+- Cohen, M. X. (2014). *Analyzing Neural Time Series Data: Theory and Practice*. MIT Press.
+- Dale, A. M. (1999). Optimal experimental design for event-related fMRI. *Human Brain Mapping*, 8(2-3), 109-114.
+- Desmond, J. E., & Glover, G. H. (2002). Estimating sample size in functional MRI (fMRI) neuroimaging studies. *Journal of Neuroscience Methods*, 118(2), 115-128.
+- Durnez, J., Degryse, J., Moerkerke, B., et al. (2016). Power and sample size calculations for fMRI studies based on the prevalence of active peaks. *bioRxiv*, 049429.
+- Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016). Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. *PNAS*, 113(28), 7900-7905.
+- Elliott, M. L., Knodt, A. R., Ireland, D., et al. (2020). What is the test-retest reliability of common task-functional MRI measures? *Biological Psychiatry*, 87(11), 934-948.
+- Genovese, C. R., Lazar, N. A., & Nichols, T. (2002). Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate. *NeuroImage*, 15(4), 870-878.
+- Hayasaka, S., Peiffer, A. M., Hugenschmidt, C. E., & Laurienti, P. J. (2007). Power and sample size calculation for neuroimaging studies by non-central random field theory. *NeuroImage*, 37(3), 721-730.
+- Joyce, K. E., & Hayasaka, S. (2012). Development of PowerMap: A software package for statistical power calculation in neuroimaging studies. *Neuroinformatics*, 10(4), 351-365.
+- 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(7902), 654-660.
+- 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.
+- Nichols, T. E., & Hayasaka, S. (2003). Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: A comparative review. *Statistical Methods in Medical Research*, 12(5), 419-446.
+- 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.
+- Smith, S. M., & Nichols, T. E. (2009). Threshold-free cluster enhancement. *NeuroImage*, 44(1), 83-98.
+- Thirion, B., Pinel, P., Meriaux, S., et al. (2007). Analysis of a large fMRI cohort: Statistical and methodological issues for group analyses. *NeuroImage*, 35(1), 105-120.
+- Worsley, K. J., Marrett, S., Neelin, P., et al. (1996). A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation. *Human Brain Mapping*, 4(1), 58-73.
+
+See `references/` for detailed simulation examples and effect size lookup tables.