Thank you, Natalie!

(8/8) Finally, something that struck me was the immense expertise of my colleagues. While responses differed, they were logically consistent and thoughtful. It was clear to me that we are all trying to do great science, sometimes in different ways. Paper: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

(7/8) Our findings highlight opportunities for core methodological work and field-level efforts to establish consensus, which will increase the utility and interpretability of developmental EEG research.

(6/8) Also, interestingly, there were discrepancies in statistical approaches and corrections for multiple comparisons.

(5/8) There was quite a bit of variability in how experts would define the frequency bands.

(4/8) For instance, most experts reported they would filter their data and had low variation in highpass filters, while lowpass filter settings showed a lot more variability.

(3/8) We learned so much from our 66 experts. The first interesting tidbit is that none of our 66 experts submitted identical preregistration -- despite many co-authorship and mentor/mentee relationships and the rise of reproducible pipelines. But, there were areas of agreement.

(2/8) We are so thankful for the 66 experts who completed our survey about how they would process and analyze a hypothetical infant resting EEG dataset!

Of course you compiled something wonderful like this! Thank you, Natalie! Also, can I be added?