Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33950220›Full record

ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2021

How representative are neuroimaging samples? Large-scale evidence for trait anxiety differences between fMRI and behaviour-only research participants.

Caroline J Charpentier, Paul Faulkner, Eva R Pool, Verena Ly, Marieke S Tollenaar, Lisa M Kluen, Aniek Fransen, Yumeya Yamamori, Níall Lally, Anahit Mkrtchian and 26 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Punishments Enhance Reward Learning by Modulating Striatal Prediction Errors.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Shared Threat-Anticipation Circuit Is Dynamically Engaged at Different Moments by Certain and Uncertain Threat.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

36 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Caroline J CharpentierDivision of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7283-0738
Paul FaulknerDepartment of Psychology, University of Roehampton, London SW15 5PJ, UK.
Eva R PoolDepartment of Psychology, University of Geneva, Geneva 1205, Switzerland.
Verena LyDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands.
Marieke S TollenaarDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands.
Lisa M KluenDivision of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Aniek FransenDivision of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Yumeya YamamoriInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Níall LallyInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Anahit MkrtchianInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Vincent ValtonInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Quentin J M HuysInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Ioannis SarigiannidisInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Kelly A MorrowDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Valentina KrenzDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Universität, Hamburg 20146, Germany.
Felix KalbeDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Universität, Hamburg 20146, Germany.
Anna CremerDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Universität, Hamburg 20146, Germany.
Gundula ZerbesDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Universität, Hamburg 20146, Germany.
Franziska M KauscheDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Universität, Hamburg 20146, Germany.
Nadine WankeDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Universität, Hamburg 20146, Germany.
Alessio GiarrizzoDepartment of Psychology, University of Geneva, Geneva 1205, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9455-7544
Erdem PulcuDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Susannah MurphyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Alexander KaltenboeckDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Michael BrowningDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Lynn K PaulDivision of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3128-8313
Roshan CoolsDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6525 AJ, The Netherlands.
Karin RoelofsDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6525 AJ, The Netherlands.
Luiz PessoaDepartment of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Catherine J HarmerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK.
Henry W ChaseDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Christian GrillonNational Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Lars SchwabeDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Universität, Hamburg 20146, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4429-4373
Jonathan P RoiserInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
Oliver J RobinsonInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AZ, UK.
John P O'DohertyDivision of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
University College London · GBUniversität Hamburg · DECalifornia Institute of Technology · USOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBLeiden University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Maryland, College Park · USUniversity of Oxford · GBNational Institute of Mental Health · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Roehampton · GB

Funding

The Psychophysiology Of Fear And AnxietyZIAMH002798 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI GRILLON, CHRISTIAN · 2009 to 2022
$29.0M
The Neurobiology of Social Decision-Making: Social Inference and ContextP50MH094258 · NIMH · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI ANDERSEN, RICHARD A · 2012 to 2021
$18.6M
INTERACTION OF EMOTIONAL PERCEPTION AND VISUAL ATTENTIONR01MH071589 · NIMH · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI PESSOA, LUIZ · 2004 to 2024
$8.9M
Dynamics of Large-Scale Networks During Emotional and Social ProcessingR01MH112517 · NIMH · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI PESSOA, LUIZ, REDCAY, ELIZABETH · 2017 to 2021
$3.3M
Determining the neural substrates of model-based and model-free reinforcement-learning during Pavlovian conditioning (Minority Supplement)R01DA040011 · NIDA · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI O'DOHERTY, JOHN P · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
Department of HealthIntramural NIH HHS ZIA MH002798Medical Research Council MR/K024280/1Medical Research Council MR/N008103/1Medical Research Council MR/R020817/1NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA040011NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH094258NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH071589NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH112517Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 101798/Z/13/ZWellcome Trust 200934/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 218642/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past three decades, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become crucial to study how cognitive processes are implemented in the human brain. However, the question of whether participants recruited into fMRI studies differ from participants recruited into other study contexts has received little to no attention. This is particularly pertinent when effects fail to generalize across study contexts: for example, a behavioural effect discovered in a non-imaging context not replicating in a neuroimaging environment. Here, we tested the hypothesis, motivated by preliminary findings (N = 272), that fMRI participants differ from behaviour-only participants on one fundamental individual difference variable: trait anxiety. Analysing trait anxiety scores and possible confounding variables from healthy volunteers across multiple institutions (N = 3317), we found robust support for lower trait anxiety in fMRI study participants, consistent with a sampling or self-selection bias. The bias was larger in studies that relied on phone screening (compared with full in-person psychiatric screening), recruited at least partly from convenience samples (compared with community samples), and in pharmacology studies. Our findings highlight the need for surveying trait anxiety at recruitment and for appropriate screening procedures or sampling strategies to mitigate this bias.

Indexed as

Anxiety DisordersMagnetic Resonance ImagingAnxietyAttentionHumansNeuroimagingbehaviourneuroimagingsampling biastrait anxiety

Identifiers

PMID33950220
PMCPMC8483285
OpenAlexW3027287525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.