» Articles » PMID: 32673043

Power Contours: Optimising Sample Size and Precision in Experimental Psychology and Human Neuroscience

Overview
Journal Psychol Methods
Specialty Psychology
Date 2020 Jul 17
PMID 32673043
Citations 68
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When designing experimental studies with human participants, experimenters must decide how many trials each participant will complete, as well as how many participants to test. Most discussion of statistical power (the ability of a study design to detect an effect) has focused on sample size, and assumed sufficient trials. Here we explore the influence of both factors on statistical power, represented as a 2-dimensional plot on which iso-power contours can be visualized. We demonstrate the conditions under which the number of trials is particularly important, that is, when the within-participant variance is large relative to the between-participants variance. We then derive power contour plots using existing data sets for 8 experimental paradigms and methodologies (including reaction times, sensory thresholds, fMRI, MEG, and EEG), and provide example code to calculate estimates of the within- and between-participants variance for each method. In all cases, the within-participant variance was larger than the between-participants variance, meaning that the number of trials has a meaningful influence on statistical power in commonly used paradigms. An online tool is provided (https://shiny.york.ac.uk/powercontours/) for generating power contours, from which the optimal combination of trials and participants can be calculated when designing future studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Citing Articles

Neural responses to emotional displays by politicians: differential mu and alpha suppression patterns in response to in-party and out-party leaders.

Homan M, Hamdan M, Hendriks K, Petropoulos Petalas D Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):8431.

PMID: 40069294 PMC: 11897177. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92898-6.


The role of individual differences and attitude in willingness to participate in TMS studies.

Lolansen C, Howard C, Mitra S, Badham S Behav Res Methods. 2025; 57(4):110.

PMID: 40063211 PMC: 11893711. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-025-02623-4.


Spatiotemporal survival analysis for movement trajectory tracking in virtual reality.

Jubran O, Wolkersdorfer M, Eymann V, Burkard N, Czernochowski D, Herrlich M Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):7313.

PMID: 40025165 PMC: 11873313. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-91471-5.


Individual differences in intolerance of uncertainty is primarily linked to the structure of inferior frontal regions.

Carlson 2nd K, Smolker H, Smith L, Snyder H, Synder H, Hankin B Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2025; .

PMID: 39870976 DOI: 10.3758/s13415-024-01262-0.


ATTENTION MODULATES STIMULUS REPRESENTATIONS IN NEURAL FEATURE DIMENSION MAPS.

Thayer D, Sprague T bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39829822 PMC: 11741479. DOI: 10.1101/2025.01.10.632497.


References
1.
. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716. View

2.
Button K, Ioannidis J, Mokrysz C, Nosek B, Flint J, Robinson E . Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013; 14(5):365-76. DOI: 10.1038/nrn3475. View

3.
Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

4.
Westfall J, Kenny D, Judd C . Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014; 143(5):2020-45. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000014. View

5.
Smith P, Little D . Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 25(6):2083-2101. PMC: 6267527. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1451-8. View