Product v1.0.0 · public EEG · fixed endpoint · honest limits
A brain signal you can inspect.
Does a classic posterior target response survive when the measurement is chosen in advance and applied to an independent auditory dataset?
target standard illustrative shape, not recorded waveform
Confirmatory result
The fixed effect survived.
All 13 participants showed a positive target-minus-standard contrast at Pz from 300–600 ms.
- Mean contrast
- +5.65 µV
- 95% confidence interval
- +4.83–6.48 µV
- Positive participants
- 13 / 13
- Two-sided test
- p = 3.88×10−9
Participant explorer
One mean. Thirteen people.
Hover or focus a mark to inspect the participant-level unit of inference. Trials are pooled within people, never counted as independent people.
Sensitivity analysis
Change the artifact threshold.
This control switches among three prespecified analyses. It does not alter the confirmatory 150 µV endpoint.
Evidence path
From question to boundary.
Every number on this page traces back to the pinned public dataset and machine-readable result.
- 01
Fix the endpoint
Pz, 300–600 ms, target minus standard, participant-level inference.
- 02
Pin the evidence
OpenNeuro ds003061 v1.1.0, checksum-verified before analysis.
- 03
Audit exclusions
38 eligible runs; one frozen metadata exclusion remains visible.
- 04
Stop at the boundary
Cross-paradigm robustness—not diagnosis, localization, or mind reading.
Scientific boundary
Strong evidence for a narrow claim.
The result supports a posterior target enhancement in this independent auditory sample. It does not show that auditory and visual oddball tasks are identical, identify one brain generator, or establish a clinical tool.