Using electrodermal activity to estimate fear learning differences in anxiety: A multiverse analysis

IF 4.2 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Behaviour Research and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1016/j.brat.2024.104598

Matthew D. Greaves , Kim L. Felmingham , Luke J. Ney , Emma L. Nicholson , Stella Li , Bram Vervliet , Ben J. Harrison , Bronwyn M. Graham , Trevor Steward

{"title":"Using electrodermal activity to estimate fear learning differences in anxiety: A multiverse analysis","authors":"Matthew D. Greaves , Kim L. Felmingham , Luke J. Ney , Emma L. Nicholson , Stella Li , Bram Vervliet , Ben J. Harrison , Bronwyn M. Graham , Trevor Steward","doi":"10.1016/j.brat.2024.104598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Meta-analyses indicate differences in Pavlovian fear responses between anxious and non-anxious individuals using electrodermal activity (EDA). Recent research, however, has cast doubt on whether these effects are robust to different analytic choices. Using the multiverse approach conceived by Steegen et al. (2016), we surveyed analytic choices typically implemented in clinical fear conditioning research by conducting 1240 analyses reflecting different choice permutations. Only 1.45% of our analyses produced theoretically congruent statistically significant effects, and the strength and direction of the estimated effects varied substantially across EDA processing methods. We conclude that EDA-estimated fear learning differences are vulnerable to researcher degrees of freedom and make recommendations regarding which analytical choices should be approached with a high degree of caution.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48457,"journal":{"name":"Behaviour Research and Therapy","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 104598"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796724001256/pdfft?md5=394f943609a66eb95952ab3508539d36&pid=1-s2.0-S0005796724001256-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behaviour Research and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796724001256","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meta-analyses indicate differences in Pavlovian fear responses between anxious and non-anxious individuals using electrodermal activity (EDA). Recent research, however, has cast doubt on whether these effects are robust to different analytic choices. Using the multiverse approach conceived by Steegen et al. (2016), we surveyed analytic choices typically implemented in clinical fear conditioning research by conducting 1240 analyses reflecting different choice permutations. Only 1.45% of our analyses produced theoretically congruent statistically significant effects, and the strength and direction of the estimated effects varied substantially across EDA processing methods. We conclude that EDA-estimated fear learning differences are vulnerable to researcher degrees of freedom and make recommendations regarding which analytical choices should be approached with a high degree of caution.

查看原文本刊更多论文

利用皮电活动估计焦虑中的恐惧学习差异：多元宇宙分析

Meta 分析表明，使用皮电活动（EDA）的巴甫洛夫恐惧反应在焦虑和非焦虑个体之间存在差异。然而，最近的研究对这些效应是否对不同的分析选择具有稳健性产生了怀疑。利用 Steegen 等人（2016 年）构想的多元宇宙方法，我们通过进行 1240 项反映不同选择排列的分析，调查了临床恐惧条件反射研究中通常采用的分析选择。我们的分析中只有 1.45% 产生了理论上一致的统计显著效应，而且不同 EDA 处理方法的估计效应的强度和方向差异很大。我们的结论是，EDA 估算的恐惧学习差异很容易受到研究者自由度的影响，并就应高度谨慎地对待哪些分析选择提出了建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Behaviour Research and Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

7.30%

发文量

148

期刊介绍： The major focus of Behaviour Research and Therapy is an experimental psychopathology approach to understanding emotional and behavioral disorders and their prevention and treatment, using cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological (including neural) methods and models. This includes laboratory-based experimental studies with healthy, at risk and subclinical individuals that inform clinical application as well as studies with clinically severe samples. The following types of submissions are encouraged: theoretical reviews of mechanisms that contribute to psychopathology and that offer new treatment targets; tests of novel, mechanistically focused psychological interventions, especially ones that include theory-driven or experimentally-derived predictors, moderators and mediators; and innovations in dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices into clinical practice in psychology and associated fields, especially those that target underlying mechanisms or focus on novel approaches to treatment delivery. In addition to traditional psychological disorders, the scope of the journal includes behavioural medicine (e.g., chronic pain). The journal will not consider manuscripts dealing primarily with measurement, psychometric analyses, and personality assessment.