Not Verified

Cognitive Neuroscience

National Institutes of Health

Document Type:	Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number:	PD-24-1699
Funding Opportunity Title:	Cognitive Neuroscience
Opportunity Category:	Discretionary
Opportunity Category Explanation:
Funding Instrument Type:	Grant
Category of Funding Activity:	Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards:	25
Assistance Listings:	47.075 -- Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement:	No

Version:	Synopsis 10
Posted Date:	Oct 12, 2023
Last Updated Date:	Apr 06, 2026
Original Closing Date for Applications:	Feb 01, 2024
Current Closing Date for Applications:	Aug 17, 2026
Archive Date:	Sep 14, 2033
Estimated Total Program Funding:
Award Ceiling:	$
Award Floor:	$

AI Based Application Success Predictor

1. Importance of the research (Significance + Innovation) (Highest Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)

For most NIH Research Project Grants submitted under the current simplified review framework, reviewers first evaluate the importance of the research, combining:

Significance of the scientific problem
Innovation
Potential to advance biomedical knowledge
Potential to improve human health
Addressing important knowledge gaps

Projects that solve important biomedical problems with innovative approaches receive the strongest scores.

2. Scientific rigor and feasibility (Approach) (Highest Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)

The Approach (now incorporated into the Rigor and Feasibility factor for many NIH RPGs) is widely regarded as the single most influential component.

Competitive proposals include:

Strong experimental design
Clearly defined Specific Aims
Appropriate statistical analysis
Rigorous methodology
Reproducibility
Risk mitigation strategies
Realistic milestones
Feasible timeline

Weak methodology is one of the most common reasons for poor NIH scores.

3. High overall scientific impact (Highest Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)

NIH reviewers ultimately assign an Overall Impact Score, reflecting the likelihood that the project will exert a sustained, powerful influence on its field.

Reviewers consider:

Scientific importance
Innovation
Rigor
Feasibility
Investigator expertise
Research environment
Additional review criteria (when applicable)

Applications do not need to be perfect in every category to receive a strong overall impact score.

4. Outstanding investigator(s) and expertise (Very High Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)

Reviewers assess whether the research team has:

Appropriate expertise
Strong publication record
Relevant technical skills
Leadership experience
Ability to complete the proposed work

Under the current framework, investigator expertise contributes to the Expertise and Resources factor.

5. Strong research environment and institutional support (Very High Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)

Competitive applications demonstrate access to:

Appropriate facilities
Core laboratories
Clinical infrastructure
Equipment
Collaborators
Institutional commitment

The research environment should clearly support successful completion of the project.

6. Innovation and originality (Very High Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)

NIH strongly favors projects that:

Challenge existing paradigms
Introduce novel concepts
Develop new methodologies
Create new technologies
Open new areas of investigation

Incremental science is generally less competitive than research with the potential for transformative advances.

7. Alignment with the specific NIH Institute/Center and Funding Opportunity (Very High Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)

Successful applications closely match:

The mission of the assigned NIH Institute or Center
The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)
Program priorities
Strategic initiatives

Even highly rated applications may not be funded if they do not fit programmatic priorities.

8. Appropriate treatment of additional review criteria (High Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆)

Depending on the project, reviewers also consider:

Protection of human subjects
Inclusion across the lifespan
Inclusion of women and minorities (where applicable)
Vertebrate animal welfare
Biohazards
Clinical trial timelines

Although these items may not always receive separate numerical scores, deficiencies can negatively affect the overall impact score or funding eligibility.

9. Clear writing and persuasive grantsmanship (High Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆)

Successful NIH proposals are characterized by:

Clear Specific Aims
Logical organization
Concise writing
Strong scientific rationale
Easy-to-follow figures and diagrams
Consistent narrative

Applications should be understandable to reviewers both within and adjacent to the applicant's field.

10. Realistic budget, project management, and compliance (High Predictor ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆)

Competitive proposals include:

Well-justified budget
Appropriate project scope
Complete documentation
Compliance with NIH policies
Timely submission
Required institutional approvals

Budget requests should align with the scientific objectives and project duration.

Specialties

Neurosciences

Psychology

Eligibility Requirements

Eligible Applicants:	Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility"
Additional Information on Eligibility:

Additional Information

Agency Name:

U.S. National Science Foundation

Description:

The Cognitive Neuroscience (CogNeuro) program seeks to fund proposals that can advance our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying human cognition and behavior. Funded proposals typically relate precise and rich quantifications of physiological responses and behavior in ways that advance theory (Intellectual Merit). Funded proposal also typically strengthen the field through, for example, outreach, mentoring the next generation of diverse cognitive neuroscientists, and/or increasing awareness and utilization of the research the field produces (Broader Impacts). 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.

Eligible Countries:

United States

Sponsor Details

Sponsor Institute/Organizations: National Institutes of Health

Sponsor Type: Government/Federal

Address: 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892

Legal & Affiliation Disclaimer

Affiliation Disclaimer: Trialect operates independently and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or supported by any sponsors or organizations posting on the GrantsBoard platform. As an independent aggregator of publicly available funding opportunities, Trialect provides equal access to information for all users without endorsing any specific funding source, content, organization, or sponsor. Trialect assumes no responsibility for the content posted by sponsors or third parties.

Subscription Disclaimer: Upon logging into Trialect, you may choose to SUBSCRIBE to GrantsBoard for timely notifications of funding opportunities and to access exclusive benefits, such as priority alerts, reminders, personalized recommendations, and additional application support. However, users are advised to contact sponsors directly for any questions and are not required to subscribe to engage with funding opportunities.

Content Ownership and Copyright Disclaimer: Trialect respects the intellectual property rights of all organizations and individuals. All content posted on GrantsBoard is provided solely for informational purposes and remains the property of the original owners. Trialect does not claim ownership of, nor does it have any proprietary interest in, content provided by third-party sponsors. Users are encouraged to verify content and ownership directly with the posting sponsor.

Fair Use Disclaimer: The information and content available on GrantsBoard are compiled from publicly accessible sources in alignment with fair use principles under U.S. copyright law. Trialect serves as an aggregator of this content, offering it to users in good faith and with the understanding that it is available for public dissemination. Any organization or individual who believes their intellectual property rights have been violated is encouraged to contact us for prompt resolution.

Third-Party Posting Responsibility Disclaimer: Trialect is a neutral platform that allows third-party sponsors to post funding opportunities for informational purposes only. Sponsors are solely responsible for ensuring that their postings comply with copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Trialect assumes no liability for any copyright or intellectual property infringements in third-party content and will take appropriate action to address any substantiated claims.

Accuracy and Verification Disclaimer: Trialect makes no warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information provided by sponsors. Users are advised to verify the details of any funding opportunity directly with the sponsor before taking action. Trialect cannot be held liable for any discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies in third-party postings.

Notice and Takedown Policy: Trialect is committed to upholding copyright law and protecting the rights of intellectual property owners. If you believe that content on GrantsBoard infringes your copyright or intellectual property rights, please contact us with detailed information about the claim. Upon receipt of a valid notice, Trialect will promptly investigate and, where appropriate, remove or disable access to the infringing content.

View Funding Opportunity