Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research

Access Data

Abstract

In this report, we illustrate the considerable impact of researcher degrees of freedom with respect to exclusion of participants in paradigms with a learning element. We illustrate this empirically through case examples from human fear conditioning research, in which the exclusion of ‘non-learners’ and ‘non-responders’ is common – despite a lack of consensus on how to define these groups. We illustrate the substantial heterogeneity in exclusion criteria identified in a systematic literature search and highlight the potential problems and pitfalls of different definitions through case examples based on re-analyses of existing data sets. On the basis of these studies, we propose a consensus on evidence-based rather than idiosyncratic criteria, including clear guidelines on reporting details. Taken together, we illustrate how flexibility in data collection and analysis can be avoided, which will benefit the robustness and replicability of research findings and can be expected to be applicable to other fields of research that involve a learning element.

ID 187

Authors

Tina Lonsdorf, Department of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany Maren Klingelhöfer-Jens, Department of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany Marta Andreatta, Department of Psychology, Biological Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; Instutute of Psychology, Education & Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands Tom Beckers, Centre for the Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology and Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Anastasia Chalkia, Centre for the Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology and Leuven Brain Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Anna Gerlicher, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Programme group Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands Valerie Jentsch, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany Shira Meir Drexler, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany Gaetan Mertens, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands Jan Richter, Department of Physiological and Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany Rachel Sjouwerman, Department of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany Julia Wendt, Biological Psychology and Affective Science, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany Christian Merz, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Year

2019

DOI of Publication

10.7554/eLife.52465

Persistent Identifier to Dataset

10.17605/OSF.IO/MKXQE

Where was the data collected?

University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Germany

How to Cite

Lonsdorf, T. B., Klingelhöfer-Jens, M., Andreatta, M., Beckers, T., Chalkia, A., Gerlicher, A., Jentsch, V. L., Meir Drexler, S., Mertens, G., Richter, J., Sjouwerman, R., Wendt, J., & Merz, C. J. (2019). Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research. eLife, 8, e52465. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52465

Participant Information

Participant Sex

Stimuli

Drug Administration

No

Conditioning Protocol

Differential

Instructions CS-US Contingencies

Uninstructed (whole exp)

Number of Different US

1

US Modality

electrotactile

Number of Different CS+

1

CS+ 1: Reinforcement Rate (%)

100

CS+ 2: Reinforcement Rate (%)

CS+ 3: Reinforcement Rate (%)

Number of Different CS-

1

CS Modality

visual

Data Collected During MRI

Yes

Physiological Measures

measured trialwise & untransformed

Skin Conductance Response

Yes Yes

Skin Conductance Level

No No

Pupil Size

No No

Fear Potentiated Startle/Startle EMG

No No

Heart Rate

No No

Ratings

US Expectancy

No

US Intensity Rating

No

CS Valence

No

CS Arousal

No

CS Fear

Yes

CS Stress

No

CS Anxiety

No

Contingency Awareness

No

Questionnaires