Authors' reply to the commentary on "Establishing norms for error-related brain activity during the arrow Flanker task among young adults".

In their commentary on our article, "Establishing norms for error-related brain activity during the arrow Flanker task among young adults" (Imburgio et al., 2020), Clayson and colleagues (2021) voiced their concerns about our development of norms for an event-related potential measure of error monitoring, the error-related negativity (ERN). The central flaw in their commentary is the idea that because we don't know all the factors that can affect the ERN, it should not be normed. We respond to this idea, while also reiterating points made in our original manuscript: a) at present, the reported norms are not intended to be used for individual clinical assessment and b) our norms should be considered specific to the procedures (i.e., recording and processing parameters) and task used (i.e., arrow Flanker). Contrary to Clayson and colleagues' claims, we believe that information about the distribution of the ERN (i.e., our norms) in a large sample representative of those used in much of the ERN literature (i.e., unselected young adults) will be useful to the field and that this information stands to increase, not decrease, understanding of the ERN.