Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Modeling and Interpreting Correlations, Null Distributions and Significance Levels in Neural Tracking of Natural Stimuli

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Neural-tracking correlations only become comparable when scored against their null distribution, and 3–5 minutes of data suffice to build it.

desk verdict A principled, well-validated framework for interpreting neural-tracking correlations, with one honest gap: the window-length extrapolation is used beyond its validated range. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10887 v1 pith:LWR5SRNK submitted 2026-08-11 q-bio.NC eess.SPq-bio.QM

Simon Geirnaert , Alexander Bertrand , Tom Francart , Jonas Vanthornhout This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCeess.SPq-bio.QM
keywords neuraltrackingnulldistributionFishertransformationpermutationtestingsignificancelevelEEGmatch-mismatchaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the Pearson correlation commonly used to quantify neural tracking of natural stimuli cannot be compared across stimulus features, models, or settings without first knowing the distribution of correlations expected by chance. It shows that the standard ways of building that null distribution are not interchangeable, each encoding a different null hypothesis, and adopts stimulus-response misalignment as the principled default. The central methodological contribution is a semi-parametric model, a normal distribution applied to Fisher-transformed correlations, that yields accurate significance levels from about 1000 permutations (3-5 minutes of data) and extrapolates them across analysis window lengths. The authors then introduce the null-normalized tracking score (NNTS), which places features and models on a common scale and connects directly to match-mismatch accuracy. Applied to EEG from 121 participants listening to continuous speech, the framework reverses conclusions drawn from raw correlations, demoting a narrowband envelope that had looked like one of the best features.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Fisher transform z = artanh(r) applied to null correlations, modeled as z ~ N(0, $sigma_z^{2}$) with the variance estimated empirically from misaligned stimulus-response pairs rather than set to 1/(N-3). The variance is then rescaled across window lengths using the ratio V(N_target)/V(N_base) of the theoretical independent-sample variances, and the significance level is recovered by applying the inverse transform tanh to a normal percentile. NNTS divides Fisher-transformed real correlations by the null standard deviation (window level) or by the pooled standard deviation of real and null correlations (participant level), making NNTS a d-prime-like sensitivity index.

What would settle it

Measure the Fisher-transformed null variance from misaligned stimulus-response pairs at several window lengths (for example 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 seconds), divide each by the theoretical independent-sample variance V(N), and check whether the resulting ratios are constant across N; if they drift, the extrapolation formula is systematically biased and the predicted significance levels and recording times are unreliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Pearson correlation between a decoded neural response and a stimulus feature is not a meaningful performance metric by itself, because its scale depends on the statistical properties of the feature and the decoder. The authors establish that the right way to interpret a tracking correlation is against the null distribution generated by stimulus-response misalignment, and that this null distribution is accurately and efficiently captured by a zero-mean normal distribution after the Fisher transform. From that model they derive significance levels at any window length and a null-normalized tracking score (NNTS) that puts different features and models on a common, unbounded scale, equals d-prime, and has a direct mathematical relation to match-mismatch accuracy. In EEG data from 121 listeners, the framework reverses the ranking suggested by raw correlations: a 1-1.1 Hz smallband envelope has among the highest raw correlations but the lowest NNTS.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that autocorrelation inflates the spread of null correlations by the same factor at every window length, so a variance measured at one window length can be extrapolated to all others.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With only 3-5 minutes of data (about 1000 misaligned permutations), significance levels can be estimated reliably for any window length and feature, removing the need for tens of thousands of permutations.
  • Features and models can be compared on a common scale via NNTS; in the 121-participant EEG analysis, the smallband envelope drops from the top raw correlation to the worst NNTS, while the envelope, acoustic edge, and phoneme onset form a top tier.
  • NNTS is mathematically equivalent, up to a monotone transform, to match-mismatch accuracy, with predicted accuracy within 0.37 percentage points of measured accuracy, and it saturates less because it is unbounded.
  • Significance levels can be extrapolated across window lengths, allowing prediction of the measurement time needed for a target correlation to reach significance: about 17 seconds for the envelope, acoustic edge, and phoneme onset versus 93 seconds for the smallband envelope.
  • The framework is agnostic to the choice of permutation method and to stimulus modality, so the same pipeline should apply to music, video, MEG, or ECoG data, subject to empirical confirmation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the variance-ratio assumption holds for other stimuli and recording modalities, the same 3-5 minute recipe could be used to design clinical or hearing-aid protocols that pre-specify recording duration from a target correlation.
  • Because NNTS depends only on the distributions of real and null correlations, it should also apply to non-linear or deep-learning decoders, whose raw correlation scales are even harder to interpret; this is a testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The equivalence between NNTS and match-mismatch accuracy suggests that existing match-mismatch pipelines could switch to NNTS to gain continuous, unbounded resolution without changing the underlying experiment.
  • A direct check of the variance-ratio assumption across window lengths on non-speech stimuli would tell whether the extrapolated significance levels and recording-time predictions transfer beyond the one dataset used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that raw Pearson correlations used to quantify neural tracking of natural stimuli are not comparable across stimulus features or models, because their null distributions differ. It compares four surrogate-data methods for constructing null distributions (random shuffling, circular shifting, phase scrambling, and stimulus-response misalignment), argues that each encodes a different null hypothesis, and adopts misalignment as the most appropriate for content-specific neural tracking. The paper then introduces a semi-parametric model in which Fisher-transformed null correlations are treated as zero-mean normal with an empirically estimated variance, claims that this yields accurate significance levels with far fewer permutations than the empirical null distribution, and extends this to predict significance levels at other window lengths by rescaling the estimated variance with the theoretical independent-sample variance V(N). On this basis it proposes the null-normalized tracking score (NNTS), shows a mathematical and empirical relationship between NNTS and match-mismatch accuracy, and applies the framework to EEG data from 121 participants listening to a continuous story, concluding that raw correlations would reverse the ranking of features relative to the NNTS-based ranking.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a practically useful and statistically principled framework for a widespread analysis choice in EEG/MEG speech tracking: it offers a way to estimate significance levels efficiently, to compare features and models on a common scale, and to connect correlation-based tracking metrics to match-mismatch accuracy. The paper is unusually thorough in its empirical validation: it uses 100,000 permutations as a ground-truth null, reports both correlation-domain and percentile-domain errors, quantifies bias and variance through resampling, and verifies the NNTS-to-match-mismatch relationship with a reported 0.37 percentage point error. The theoretical V(N) rescaling is a parameter-free derivation, and the code, data, and toolbox availability statements are exemplary. The main limitation is that the cross-window extrapolation, which underpins the headline efficiency claim and the predicted measurement times, is validated only for window lengths up to 20 s and is then applied to far longer windows; this is a load-bearing issue rather than a cosmetic one, but it is addressable with additional validation or with appropriately restricted claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [4.3 (Eq. (3)); Table 1] The extrapolation formula in Eq. (3) rests on the assumption that the empirical null variance of the Fisher-transformed correlations equals c*V(N) with the same multiplicative constant c at every window length, where c absorbs the autocorrelation-induced inflation of the effective sample size. The manuscript validates the resulting extrapolation only for window lengths of 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 s (Figures 11-12), and Table 1 then extrapolates to 93.4 s for the smallband envelope and 43.0 s for punctuation onset, far beyond the validated range. Because the ridge-regularized decoder is retrained at each window length and because the spectral properties of the stimulus feature and the reconstruction differ, the inflation factor could plausibly change with N, which would bias the extrapolated significance levels and the predicted measurement times. The manuscript should either validate the constancy of the inflation factor at longer window lengths, provide a bound on its variation, or explicitly restrict the extrapolation claim to the validated range.
  2. [5.1 (Table 1)] The predicted measurement times in Table 1 additionally assume that the mean correlation for each feature is approximately constant across window lengths. This assumption is stated in Section 5.1 with a citation to Lopez-Gordo et al. (2025), but that reference concerns unsupervised accuracy estimation in auditory attention decoding rather than a direct demonstration for the speech features and the 121-participant dataset used here. Since the predicted time to significance depends as much on this assumed constancy as on the null-variance extrapolation, the table should either provide supporting evidence that the mean correlations are stable for these features or present the assumption explicitly with a discussion of how its failure would change the predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'readibility' should be 'readability'.
  2. [Section 1] The text contains a typo: 'non-trival problem' should be 'non-trivial problem'.
  3. [Appendix B] The appendix appears to contain a duplicated and incomplete passage: the sentence beginning 'Given estimated variance of the per-window raw correlations (with mean assumed0):' is immediately followed by a second, nearly identical introduction of the same problem; this passage should be rewritten as a single clean statement.
  4. [Figure 16(b)] The x-axis label 'mean predicted MM accuracy based on NNTS [%]' is ambiguous; the figure would be clearer if the axes were labeled 'Predicted match-mismatch accuracy [%]' and 'Observed match-mismatch accuracy [%]'.
  5. [Key take-away #4] The key take-away box ends with an ellipsis and appears to omit the end of the sentence ('...across window lengths, features, ...'); the sentence should be completed or the ellipsis removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the null model, the window-length extrapolation, and the NNTS/match-mismatch link are self-contained, empirically validated, or explicitly assumed, rather than reduced to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The null distribution is generated by the misalignment procedure of Section 3.1.5, and the semi-parametric Fisher-transform model has a single data-estimated parameter, the null variance, fitted from those permutations (Section 4.1). The significance-level estimates are validated against independent 100,000-permutation ground truths and against subset sizes (Figures 9-10), so the '3-5 min' efficiency claim is an out-of-sample statistical claim, not a renamed fit. The window-length extrapolation in Eq. (3) uses V(N) from Fouladi and Steiger (2008), an external cumulant result, and the key assumption that the autocorrelation inflation factor is window-length-independent is explicit and empirically checked over the validated 1-20 s range (Figures 11-12). Extrapolation to 93 s in Table 1 is labeled illustrative and rests on a stated assumption about constant mean correlation, not on a tautology. The NNTS definitions in Eq. (5) are constructions, and the match-mismatch relation is derived algebraically from normal assumptions and then empirically checked (0.37 percentage point error, Figure 16b), so it is not circular. Self-citations to Geirnaert et al. (2025) and Lopez-Gordo et al. (2025) support implementation details or an explicitly stated assumption for Table 1, and they are not load-bearing; no result is forced by a self-citation chain. Single-dataset validation is a limitation, but it is a generalization risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard statistical results (Fisher transform, CLT for averaged correlations) plus domain assumptions about stationarity and normality. The only fitted quantity central to the method is the null variance sigma_z^2, which is the intended model parameter. The variance-rescaling assumption is the most paper-specific and least-examined premise.

free parameters (2)
  • Null variance of Fisher-transformed correlations (sigma_z^2) = Estimated per participant, feature, and window length (no single value)
    Estimated from misalignment permutations as the mean squared Fisher-transformed null correlations; this is the single parameter of the semi-parametric null model and directly determines all significance-level estimates.
  • Ridge regularization parameter (lambda) of the backward decoder = Not reported in the text
    Used in the least-squares decoder (Section 2.3); it shapes the reconstructed signal and therefore affects both real and null correlations. Its value is a standard hyperparameter in this literature, but the paper does not state how it was chosen.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Fisher transformation of a Pearson correlation is approximately normally distributed, with variance depending on the sample size N.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to model null correlations; the paper estimates the variance empirically instead of using the theoretical 1/(N-3).
  • domain assumption The null distribution of correlation coefficients must have a mean of zero.
    Key take-away #2; used as a necessary condition to validate permutation procedures and as a check in Algorithm 1.
  • domain assumption The stimulus and its statistical relationship to the neural response are approximately stationary across the segments used for misalignment.
    Section 3.1.5 explicitly states: 'Misalignment does rest on the assumption that the stimulus, and its statistical relationship to the neural response, is approximately stationary across the set of segments from which surrogates are drawn.'
  • ad hoc to paper The ratio of the actual null variance of Fisher-transformed correlations to the theoretical independent-sample variance V(N) is constant across window lengths.
    Section 4.3, Eq. (3) rescales a base-window variance by V(N_target)/V(N_base). The constant-ratio assumption is not explicitly stated or tested; it is needed for the extrapolation across window lengths.
  • domain assumption Real (aligned) correlations, after Fisher transformation, follow a normal distribution with a non-zero mean.
    Footnote in Section 5.2: the authors note they 'implicitly assume' this, supported by theoretical explanations and prior applications.
  • ad hoc to paper Aligned and misaligned Fisher-transformed correlations are independent in the match-mismatch derivation.
    Section 5.2.1 notes 'this is not necessarily true, as the underlying neural responses and stimuli are shared', but states it is empirically defensible based on the close agreement in Figure 16b.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling and Interpreting Correlations, Null Distributions and Significance Levels in Neural Tracking of Natural Stimuli." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWR5SRNK

@misc{pith2026260810887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling and Interpreting Correlations, Null Distributions and Significance Levels in Neural Tracking of Natural Stimuli},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWR5SRNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10887}
}
read the original abstract

Neural tracking - the time-locking of neural responses to continuous stimuli such as speech, music, and video - is widely used to study how the brain processes natural input. Tracking strength is typically quantified as the correlation between the recorded neural response and the stimulus, decoded and/or encoded through data-driven models, and this correlation is routinely used to compare stimulus features, models, or settings. However, its magnitude depends not only on how strongly the brain tracks the stimulus, but also on the statistical properties of the signals being correlated. For example, a smallband speech envelope carrying almost no information about speech content yields among the highest correlations, simply because it is easier to reconstruct. Meaningful interpretation therefore requires comparing each correlation to its null distribution: the correlations expected without any stimulus-response relationship. We show that the randomization procedures commonly used to construct this null distribution are not interchangeable: each implicitly encodes a different null hypothesis, and we motivate stimulus-response misalignment as the most practical and appropriate choice. Because reliable null distributions require many permutations, we introduce a semi-parametric model using the normal distribution after the Fisher transform that yields accurate significance levels from only 3-5 min of data and predicts them across analysis window lengths. Building on this, we propose the null-normalized tracking score, an interpretable measure placing features and models on a common scale, which relates directly to the widely used match-mismatch accuracy. Applied to EEG from 121 participants listening to continuous speech, the framework reverses conclusions drawn from raw correlations, providing an efficient and principled methodology for interpreting neural tracking correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data-driven models relate natural stimuli such as speech, music, and video to neural responses. Their outputs are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The per-participant average neural tracking correlations (Pearson correlation coefficient) across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The eight speech stimulus features used throughout this paper, shown for a representative segment in the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Null distributions of the 4 permutation methods for the envelope at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PDFs and QQ-plots of the semi-parametric model (normal distribution after the Fisher transform) against the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: To evaluate the significance level estimation from the modeled distribution, i.e., given a certain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The average (across participants) relative correlation error on the estimated 95%-significance level using the normal distribution after Fisher transformation, reminaing below 1.25% across features and window lengths. (b) The average (across participants) absolute …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: With few permutations, the tail of the null distribution is undersampled, making direct empirical estimation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) The average (across participants, features, window lengths, and resamplings; shaded area: ±1 SD) relative correlation error on the estimated 95%-significance level as a function of the number of permutations K. (b) The corresponding average absolute percentile erro…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean ± SD (across participants and resamplings) estimated 95%-significance level for the punctuation onset feature at 5 s windows, as a function of the number of permutations. The semi-parametric model shows lower bias and substantially lower variance than the empiric…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Extrapolating the significance level using the semi-parametric model gives accurate predictions across window [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The average (across features and participants; shaded area: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The average (across features, participants, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) The individual neural tracking correlations (one dot = one window) and boxplots across all 5 s-windows and participants, for every feature, including the significance levels characterized using Algorithm 1. All correlations below the significance level are non-sig…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (a) The null-normalized tracking score (NNTS) at the window level (NNTSw) with 5 s windows allows comparing features on the same scale and with a uniform significance level. (b) The NNTS at the participant level (NNTSp) summarizes neural tracking per participant and, …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (a) The match-mismatch decision variable ∆z follows a normal distribution with parameters derived from the modeled real and null distributions, enabling a direct transformation from NNTSp to the match-mismatch accuracy metric. (b) The NNTS-predicted match-mismatch (MM…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The mean ± SD (across participants, features, and 100 resamplings) absolute error on the match-mismatch accuracy, obtained either through the modeled NNTSp or empirically, as a function of the number of windows m. The modeled approach is more accurate for small m, wit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9413404 , file =

    Geirnaert, Simon and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , booktitle =. doi:10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9413404 , file =

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , volume=

    Electroencephalography-based auditory attention decoding: Toward neurosteered hearing devices , author=. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    The harmonic mean p-value for combining dependent tests , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abf771 , year =

    de Cheveigné, Alain and Slaney, Malcolm and Fuglsang, Søren A and Hjortkjaer, Jens , title =. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abf771 , year =

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abf771

  5. [5]

    2018 , issn =

    Decoding the auditory brain with canonical component analysis , journal =. 2018 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.033 , author =

    doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.033 2018

  6. [6]

    2019 , issn =

    NeuroImage , volume =. 2019 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.037 , author =

    doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.037 2019

  7. [7]

    Wilroth, Johanna and Silva, Nancy Sotero and Tafakkor, Ali and de Avo Mesquita, Bruno and Ip, Emily Y. J. and Lau, Bonnie and Hannah, Jaimy and Di Liberto, Giovanni M. , title =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  8. [8]

    2024 , volume=

    Monesi, Mohammad Jalilpour and Bollens, Lies and Accou, Bernd and Vanthornhout, Jonas and Van Hamme, Hugo and Francart, Tom , journal=. 2024 , volume=

    2024

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ae3ae1 , year =

    MacIntyre, Alexis D and Gaultier, Clément and Goehring, Tobias , title =. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ae3ae1 , year =

    doi

  2. [10]

    Di Liberto, Giovanni M. , year=

  3. [11]

    Nicolas Heintz and Tom Francart and Alexander Bertrand , year=

  4. [12]

    and Power, Alan J

    O'Sullivan, James A. and Power, Alan J. and Mesgarani, Nima and Rajaram, Siddharth and Foxe, John J. and Shinn-Cunningham, Barbara G. and Slaney, Malcolm and Shamma, Shihab A. and Lalor, Edmund C. , doi =. Cerebral Cortex , keywords =

  5. [13]

    Mesgarani, Nima and Chang, Edward F. , doi =. Nature , keywords =

  6. [14]

    and Fuglsang, S

    Wong, Daniel D.E. and Fuglsang, S. Frontiers in Neuroscience , keywords =. doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00531 , file =

    2018

  7. [15]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , keywords =

    Geirnaert, Simon and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , doi =. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , keywords =

  8. [16]

    eLife , number =

    Vandecappelle, Servaas and Deckers, Lucas and Das, Neetha and Ansari, Amir Hossein and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom , doi =. eLife , number =

  9. [17]

    and Zuk, Nathaniel J

    Crosse, Michael J. and Zuk, Nathaniel J. and Di Liberto, Giovanni M. and Nidiffer, Aaron R. and Molholm, Sophie and Lalor, Edmund C. , month = nov, year =. Linear. doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.705621 , journal =

    2021

  10. [18]

    Fisher, Ronald A , publisher=

  11. [19]

    1937 , publisher=

    Pitman, Edwin J G , journal=. 1937 , publisher=

    1937

  12. [20]

    2015 , publisher=

    Combrisson, Etienne and Jerbi, Karim , journal =. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ace73f , year =

    Puffay, Corentin and Accou, Bernd and Bollens, Lies and Monesi, Mohammad Jalilpour and Vanthornhout, Jonas and Van hamme, Hugo and Francart, Tom , title =. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ace73f , year =

    doi

  14. [22]

    The American Statistician , volume =

    John Ludbrook and Hugh Dudley , title =. The American Statistician , volume =. 1998 , publisher =

    1998

  15. [23]

    2021 , publisher=

    Noguchi, Kimihiro and Konietschke, Frank and Marmolejo-Ramos, Fernando and Pauly, Markus , journal=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  16. [24]

    2007 , publisher=

    Maris, Eric and Oostenveld, Robert , journal=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  17. [25]

    2023 , publisher=

    Holt, Charles A and Sullivan, Sean P , journal=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  18. [26]

    2024 , doi=

    Crosse, Michael J and Foxe, John J and Molholm, Sophie , howpublished =. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  19. [27]

    IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , number =

    Geirnaert, Simon and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , doi =. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , number =

  20. [28]

    2024 , doi =

    Rotaru, Iustina and Geirnaert, Simon and Heintz, Nicolas and Van de Ryck, Iris and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom , journal =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  21. [29]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.11058711 , url =

    Rotaru, Iustina and Geirnaert, Simon and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11058711 , url =

    doi

  22. [30]

    2024 , publisher=

    Geirnaert, Simon and Zink, Rob and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , editor=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.037 , file =

    Neuron , number =. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.037 , file =

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Ding, Nai and Simon, Jonathan Z. , doi =. Journal of Neurophysiology , keywords =

  25. [33]

    doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.030 , file =

    Current Biology , number =. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.030 , file =

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Journal of Neural Engineering , keywords =

    Das, Neetha and Biesmans, Wouter and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom , doi =. Journal of Neural Engineering , keywords =

  27. [35]

    Journal of Neural Engineering , keywords =

    Lotte, Fabien and Bougrain, Laurent and Cichocki, Andrzej and Clerc, Maureen and Congedo, Marco and Rakotomamonjy, Alain and Yger, Florian , doi =. Journal of Neural Engineering , keywords =

  28. [36]

    IEEE Journal on Biomedical and Health Informatics , number =

    Geirnaert, Simon and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , doi =. IEEE Journal on Biomedical and Health Informatics , number =

  29. [37]

    Journal of Neural Engineering , keywords =

    Das, Neetha and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom , doi =. Journal of Neural Engineering , keywords =

  30. [38]

    2017 , issn =

    NeuroImage , volume =. 2017 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.026 , author =

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    2024 , volume =

    Roebben, Arnout and Heintz, Nicolas and Geirnaert, Simon and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , journal=. 2024 , volume =

    2024

  32. [40]

    2019 , publisher=

    McShane, Blakeley B and Gal, David and Gelman, Andrew and Robert, Christian and Tackett, Jennifer L , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  33. [41]

    Nature Human Behaviour , volume=

    Benjamin, Daniel J and Berger, James O and Johannesson, Magnus and Nosek, Brian A and Wagenmakers, E-J and Berk, Richard and Bollen, Kenneth A and Brembs, Bj. Nature Human Behaviour , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  34. [42]

    and Parra, Lucas C

    Ki, Jason J. and Parra, Lucas C. and Dmochowski, Jacek P. , title =. European Journal of Neuroscience , volume =. doi:10.1111/ejn.14924 , year =

    doi

  35. [43]

    2017 , volume=

    Biesmans, Wouter and Das, Neetha and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , journal=. 2017 , volume=

    2017

  36. [44]

    and Murphy, Jeremy W

    Zuk, Nathaniel J. and Murphy, Jeremy W. and Reilly, Richard B. and Lalor, Edmund C. , doi =. PLOS Computational Biology , number =

  37. [45]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ad2333 , pages =

    Yao, Yuanyuan and Stebner, Axel and Tuytelaars, Tinne and Geirnaert, Simon and Bertrand, Alexander , journal =. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ad2333 , pages =

    doi

  38. [46]

    2022 , publisher=

    Thornton, Mike and Mandic, Danilo and Reichenbach, Tobias , journal=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  39. [47]

    2019 , publisher=

    Etard, Octave and Reichenbach, Tobias , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  40. [48]

    2021 , volume=

    Reddy Katthi, Jaswanth and Ganapathy, Sriram , journal=. 2021 , volume=

    2021

  41. [49]

    and Francart, Tom and Brodbeck, Christian , doi =

    Gillis, Marlies and Vanthornhout, Jonas and Simon, Jonathan Z. and Francart, Tom and Brodbeck, Christian , doi =. Journal of Neuroscience , number =

  42. [50]

    and Ki, Jason J

    Dmochowski, Jacek P. and Ki, Jason J. and DeGuzman, Paul and Sajda, Paul and Parra, Lucas C. , doi =. NeuroImage , keywords =

  43. [51]

    Frontiers in Neuroscience , keywords =

    Alickovic, Emina and Lunner, Thomas and Gustafsson, Fredrik and Ljung, Lennart , doi =. Frontiers in Neuroscience , keywords =

  44. [52]

    PLOS ONE , number =

    Sturm, Irene and D. PLOS ONE , number =. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141281 , editor =

    doi

  45. [53]

    doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.673401 , file =

    Frontiers in Neuroscience , keywords =. doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.673401 , file =

    2021

  46. [54]

    Hearing Research , pages =

    Verschueren, Eline and Somers, Ben and Francart, Tom , doi =. Hearing Research , pages =

  47. [55]

    and Francart, Tom , doi =

    Vanthornhout, Jonas and Decruy, Lien and Wouters, Jan and Simon, Jonathan Z. and Francart, Tom , doi =. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology , keywords =

  48. [56]

    doi:10.7554/eLife.51784 , file =

    eLife , keywords =. doi:10.7554/eLife.51784 , file =

    doi

  49. [57]

    and David, Stephen V

    Pasley, Brian N. and David, Stephen V. and Mesgarani, Nima and Flinker, Adeen and Shamma, Shihab A. and Crone, Nathan E. and Knight, Robert T. and Chang, Edward F. , doi =. PLoS Biology , number =

  50. [58]

    Journal of Multivariate Analysis , number =

    Ledoit, Olivier and Wolf, Michael , doi =. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , number =

  51. [59]

    Aiken, Steven J and Picton, Terence W. , doi =. Ear and Hearing , number =

  52. [60]

    doi:10.1109/TBME.2021.3080123 , file =

    IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , number =. doi:10.1109/TBME.2021.3080123 , file =

    2021

  53. [61]

    2008 , doi=

    Fouladi, Rachel T and Steiger, James H , journal=. 2008 , doi=

    2008

  54. [62]

    1953 , doi=

    Hotelling, Harold , journal=. 1953 , doi=

    1953

  55. [63]

    Fisher, R , journal=

  56. [64]

    Asuero, A. G. and Sayago, A. and González, A. G. , journal=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  57. [65]

    and Wöstmann, M

    Fiedler, L. and Wöstmann, M. and Herbst, S. K. and Obleser, J. , doi =. NeuroImage , number =

  58. [66]

    NeuroImage , number =

    Chen, Ya-Ping and Schmidt, Fabian and Keitel, Anne and Rösch, Sebastian and Hauswald, Anne and Weisz, Nathan , doi =. NeuroImage , number =

  59. [67]

    and Otten, J

    Daeglau, M. and Otten, J. and Grimm, G. and Mirkovic, B. and Hohmann, V. and Debener, S. , doi =. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , pages =

  60. [68]

    Lopez-Gordo, M. A. and Geirnaert, Simon and Bertrand, Alexander , doi =. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , number =

  61. [69]

    2025 , volume=

    Geirnaert, Simon and Vanthornhout, Jonas and Francart, Tom and Bertrand, Alexander , booktitle=. 2025 , volume=

    2025

  62. [70]

    Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology , doi =

    Belinda Phipson and Gordon K Smyth , volume =. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology , doi =

  63. [71]

    Data , VOLUME =

    Accou, Bernd and Bollens, Lies and Gillis, Marlies and Verheijen, Wendy and Van hamme, Hugo and Francart, Tom , TITLE =. Data , VOLUME =. 2024 , NUMBER =

    2024

  64. [72]

    2015 , publisher=

    Horrace, William C , journal=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  65. [73]

    2018 , publisher=

    Brodbeck, Christian and Hong, L Elliot and Simon, Jonathan Z , journal=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  66. [74]

    2018 , publisher=

    Broderick, Michael P and Anderson, Andrew J and Di Liberto, Giovanni M and Crosse, Michael J and Lalor, Edmund C , journal=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  67. [75]

    2018 , issn =

    Physics Reports , volume =. 2018 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.06.001 , author =

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    1996 , publisher =

    Schreiber, Thomas and Schmitz, Andreas , journal =. 1996 , publisher =

    1996

  69. [77]

    and Stuart, Alan , title =

    Kendall, Maurice G. and Stuart, Alan , title =. 1979 , isbn =

    1979

  70. [78]

    and Torrésani, Bruno and Balazs, Peter , title =

    Søndergaard, Peter L. and Torrésani, Bruno and Balazs, Peter , title =. International Journal of Wavelets, Multiresolution and Information Processing , volume =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  71. [79]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ac33e9 , year =

    Accou, Bernd and Jalilpour Monesi, Mohammad and Van hamme, Hugo and Francart, Tom , title =. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ac33e9 , year =

    doi

  72. [80]

    2026 , publisher =

    Geirnaert, Simon and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom and Vanthornhout, Jonas , title =. 2026 , publisher =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21821416 , url =

    2026 doi

  73. [81]

    2026 , publisher =

    Geirnaert, Simon and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom and Vanthornhout, Jonas , title =. 2026 , publisher =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21827915 , url =

    2026 doi

  74. [82]

    2026 , publisher =

    Geirnaert, Simon and Bertrand, Alexander and Francart, Tom and Vanthornhout, Jonas , title =. 2026 , publisher =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21819899 , url =

    2026 doi

  75. [83]

    and Foxe, John J

    Lalor, Edmund C. and Foxe, John J. , title =. European Journal of Neuroscience , volume =. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.07055.x , year =

    2009

  76. [84]

    The Technology of Binaural Listening , publisher =

    Søndergaard, Peter and Majdak, Piotr , title =. The Technology of Binaural Listening , publisher =. 2013 , editor =

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.