underline;">Intellectual Merit In general, successful proposals provide a theoretical motivation and consist of a series of experiments/analyses that test the differential predictions of that theory; they go beyond quantifying physiology during certain tasks and behaviors. Research topics considered for funding include but are not limited to: perception, recognition, categorization, implicit and explicit memory, working memory, attention, language, decision-making, and social reasoning. Commensurate with the inherently multidisciplinary nature of the field and the limitations of any single technique, a wide variety of physiological methods are considered, including but not limited to: neuroimaging (e.g., fMRI, EEG, MEG), non-invasive stimulation (e.g. TMS, tDCS), lesion analysis, intracranial recording, optogenetics, genetics, optical imaging, computational modeling, and pharmacological interventions in both human and non-human primates and other animal models. The program is particularly interested in proposals that achieve or enable convergence across multiple techniques. Critically, proposals will be returned without review if they are focused on: 1) either behavior or physiology and lack a specific link between them, 2) understanding clinical populations, 3) non-human animals without a clear benefit to our understanding of humans. Broader Impacts In general, successful proposals make impacts beyond traditional academic routes, such as publishing research or teaching undergraduate courses. Strong broader impacts can be quite varied but will typically involve specific efforts strengthening the field and/or increasing its visibility that leverage the characteristics of the institution, department, and/or researcher. Consider the following non-exhaustive examples: 1) STEM education and outreach, particularly in underserved communities, 2) directly involving undergraduates and high-school students in research, 3) making tools and applications for the general public, 4) science journalism or advocacy. These efforts can, but need not, directly relate to the proposed research. It is also encouraged to include budget for these efforts if warranted. Mentoring Plans Strong mentoring plans generally go beyond inclusion in standard lab activities and incorporate specific ideas for forwarding the careers of young scientists and trainees that leverage the setting and content of the proposed research. General Directions Prior to the development of a full proposal, investigators are strongly encouraged to submit a one-page summary of the proposed research to a program director to evaluate its appropriateness for the CogNeuro program. Please contact the director early enough to allow for revisions and incorporation what may be extensive feedback. The summary should include an overview of your research and statements of intellectual merit and broader impacts, the two NSF review criteria. See the Merit Review Fact Sheet for more important facts about the NSF merit review process. Please read the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) carefully, as it will be strictly adhered to even if other directives or communications appear to contradict it. Currently, the average standard/CAREER award size is $175,000-$225,000 per year for 3-5 years. Awards in excess of $1.0 million are exceptionally rare and almost always multidisciplinary. Please be judicious in your requests, understanding the realities of the limited funding available for all proposals. See the Listing of Active Cognitive Neuroscience Awards for additional award information. Declined proposals are ineligible for resubmission until a minimum of one year has passed since the due date of their initial submission, unless specifically allowed by the PO in the feedback received during the decline process. This moratorium allows investigators the time required to digest the results of the merit review and revise their proposal accordingly. A proposal that has not been substantially revised will be returned without review as per the PAPPG. PIs are strongly encouraged to submit the Single Copy Document titled “List of Suggested Reviewers” with their full proposal. Sharing of data and other materials is an expectation for funded research. Please consult the NSF Dear Colleague Letter: Effective Practices for Data for more details. Interested in talking with a program director? Send a one-page description of the proposed research to sbe-cogneuro@nsf.gov.