ArticleHuman brain mapping2022
Reliability of task-evoked neural activation during face-emotion paradigms: Effects of scanner and psychological processes.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Relations Among Anxiety, Movie-Watching, and in-Scanner Motion.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Trait state occasion (TSO) modeling of event-related potentials (ERPs).Biological psychology · 2025Article
- Development of Neural Mechanisms Underlying Threat Processing: Associations With Childhood Social Reticence and Adolescent Anxiety.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2023Article
- Understanding anxiety symptoms as aberrant defensive responding along the threat imminence continuum.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Age-related change in task-evoked amygdala-prefrontal circuitry: A multiverse approach with an accelerated longitudinal cohort aged 4-22 years.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- Reliability of task-evoked neural activation during face-emotion paradigms: Effects of scanner and psychological processes.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing and improving test-retest reliability is critical to efforts to address concerns about replicability of task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging. The current study uses two statistical approaches to examine how scanner and task-related factors influence reliability of neural response to face-emotion viewing. Forty healthy adult participants completed two face-emotion paradigms at up to three scanning sessions across two scanners of the same build over approximately 2 months. We examined reliability across the main task contrasts using Bayesian linear mixed-effects models performed voxel-wise across the brain. We also used a novel Bayesian hierarchical model across a predefined whole-brain parcellation scheme and subcortical anatomical regions. Scanner differences accounted for minimal variance in temporal signal-to-noise ratio and task contrast maps. Regions activated during task at the group level showed higher reliability relative to regions not activated significantly at the group level. Greater reliability was found for contrasts involving conditions with clearly distinct visual stimuli and associated cognitive demands (e.g., face vs. nonface discrimination) compared to conditions with more similar demands (e.g., angry vs. happy face discrimination). Voxel-wise reliability estimates tended to be higher than those based on predefined anatomical regions. This work informs attempts to improve reliability in the context of task activation patterns and specific task contrasts. Our study provides a new method to estimate reliability across a large number of regions of interest and can inform researchers' selection of task conditions and analytic contrasts.
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.