Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33075428›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology2020

Filtering and model-based analysis independently improve skin-conductance response measures in the fMRI environment: Validation in a sample of women with PTSD.

Anthony A Privratsky, Keith A Bush, Dominik R Bach, Emily M Hahn, Josh M Cisler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anthony A PrivratskyBrain Imaging Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock 72205, AR, USA. Electronic address: aaprivratsky@uams.edu.
Keith A BushBrain Imaging Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock 72205, AR, USA.
Dominik R BachWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging and Max-Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing, 12 Queen Square, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom; Computational Psychiatry Research, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, Psychiatric Hospital, University of Zurich, Lenggstrasse 31, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
Emily M HahnAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, 149 Thirteenth St, Charlestown 02129, MA, USA.
Josh M CislerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53726, WI, USA.

Funding

Translational Training in AddictionT32DA022981 · NIDA · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI Melissa Jean Zielinski · 2009 to 2026
$6.1M
Computational Biases of Learning and Decision-Making in PTSDR01MH119132 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CISLER, JOSHUA M · 2019 to 2023
$2.6M
Dopamine Enhancement of fear extinction learning in PTSDR21MH108753 · NIMH · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI CISLER, JOSHUA M · 2016 to 2017
$715k
NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA022981NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH119132NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH108753
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous methods exist for the pre-processing and analysis of skin-conductance response (SCR) data, but there is incomplete consensus on suitability and implementation, particularly with regard to signal filtering in conventional peak score (PS) analysis. This is particularly relevant when SCRs are measured during fMRI, which introduces additional noise and signal variability. Using SCR-fMRI data (n = 65 women) from a fear conditioning experiment, we compare the impact of three nested data processing methods on analysis using conventional PS as well as psychophysiological modeling. To evaluate the different methods, we quantify effect size to recover a benchmark contrast of interest, namely, discriminating SCR magnitude to a conditioned stimulus (CS+) relative to a CS not followed by reinforcement (CS-). Findings suggest that low-pass filtering reduces PS sensitivity (Δd = -20%), while band-pass filtering improves PS sensitivity (Δd = +27%). We also replicate previous findings that a psychophysiological modeling approach yields superior sensitivity to detect contrasts of interest than even the most sensitive PS method (Δd = +110%). Furthermore, we present preliminary evidence that filtering differences may account for a portion of exclusions made on commonly applied metrics, such as below zero discrimination. Despite some limitations of our sample and experimental design, it appears that SCR processing pipelines that include band-pass filtering, ideally with model-based SCR quantification, may increase the validity of SCR response measures, maximize research productivity, and decrease sampling bias by reducing data exclusion.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingStress Disorders, Post-TraumaticConditioning, ClassicalFearFemaleGalvanic Skin ResponseHumansEDAElectrophysiologyfMRIGSRSCRSkin-conductance

Identifiers

PMID33075428
PMCPMC7736483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.