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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neurobiological Alterations in Females With PTSD: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- A Study on Autonomous Driving Motion Sickness from the Perspective of Multimodal Human Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Neural and physiological correlates of parent-child observational threat extinction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing precision in human neuroscience.eLife · 2023Review
- Value estimation and latent-state update-related neural activity during fear conditioning predict posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.