Rules
In the chapter “Ten Simple Rules for Designing and Interpreting ERP Experiments” of the book Event-Related Potentials: A Methods Handbook, Steven J. Luck proposed ten rules for ERP experiments.
-
Peaks and components are not the same thing. There is nothing special about the point at which the voltage reaches a local maximum or minimum.
-
It is impossible to estimate the time course or peak latency of a latent ERP component by looking at a single ERP waveform – there may be no obvious relationship between the shape of a local part of the waveform and the underlying latent components.
-
It is extremely dangerous to compare an experimental effect (i.e., the difference between two ERP waveforms) with the raw ERP waveforms.
-
Differences in peak amplitude do not necessarily correspond to differences in component size, and differences in peak latency do not necessarily correspond to changes in component timing.
-
Never assume that an averaged ERP waveform accurately represents the single-trial waveforms.
-
Whenever possible, avoid physical stimulus confounds by using the same physical stimuli across different psychological conditions. This includes “context” confounds, such as differences in sequential order.
-
When physical stimulus confounds cannot be avoided, conduct control experiments to assess their plausibility. Never assume that a small physical stimulus difference cannot explain an ERP effect (even at a long latency).
-
Be cautious when comparing averaged ERPs that are based on different numbers of trials.
-
Be cautious when the presence or timing of motor responses differs between conditions.
-
Whenever possible, experimental conditions should be varied within trial blocks rather than between trial blocks.