Item

Abstract

The replication crisis in experimental psychology and neuroscience has received much attention recently. This has led to wide acceptance of measures to improve scientific practices, such as preregistration and registered reports. Less effort has been devoted to performing and reporting the results of systematic tests of the functioning of the experimental setup itself. Yet, inaccuracies in the performance of the experimental setup may affect the results of a study, lead to replication failures, and importantly, impede the ability to integrate results across studies. Prompted by challenges we experienced when deploying studies across six laboratories collecting electroencephalography (EEG)/magnetoencephalography (MEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and intracranial EEG (iEEG), here we describe a framework for both testing and reporting the performance of the experimental setup. In addition, 100 researchers were surveyed to provide a snapshot of current common practices and community standards concerning testing in published experiments’ setups. Most researchers reported testing their experimental setups. Almost none, however, published the tests performed or their results. Tests were diverse, targeting different aspects of the setup. Through simulations, we clearly demonstrate how even slight inaccuracies can impact the final results. We end with a standardized, open-source, step-by-step protocol for testing (visual) event-related experiments, shared via protocols.io. The protocol aims to provide researchers with a benchmark for future replications and insights into the research quality to help improve the reproducibility of results, accelerate multicenter studies, increase robustness, and enable integration across studies.