Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35609058›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Methodological implications of sample size and extinction gradient on the robustness of fear conditioning across different analytic strategies.

Luke J Ney, Patrick A F Laing, Trevor Steward, Daniel V Zuj, Simon Dymond, Ben Harrison, Bronwyn Graham, Kim L Felmingham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Understanding the Role of Endocannabinoids in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Luke J NeySchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0209-8366
Patrick A F LaingMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne & Melbourne Health, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6890-6827
Trevor StewardSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Daniel V ZujSchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6376-8354
Simon DymondSchool of Psychology, Swansea University, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1319-4492
Ben HarrisonMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne & Melbourne Health, Victoria, Australia.
Bronwyn GrahamSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6582-2273
Kim L FelminghamSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUReykjavík University · ISSwansea University · GBUniversity of Tasmania · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fear conditioning paradigms are critical to understanding anxiety-related disorders, but studies use an inconsistent array of methods to quantify the same underlying learning process. We previously demonstrated that selection of trials from different stages of experimental phases and inconsistent use of average compared to trial-by-trial analysis can deliver significantly divergent outcomes, regardless of whether the data is analysed with extinction as a single effect, as a learning process over the course of the experiment, or in relation to acquisition learning. Since small sample sizes are attributed as sources of poor replicability in psychological science, in this study we aimed to investigate if changes in sample size influences the divergences that occur when different kinds of fear conditioning analyses are used. We analysed a large data set of fear acquisition and extinction learning (N = 379), measured via skin conductance responses (SCRs), which was resampled with replacement to create a wide range of bootstrapped databases (N = 30, N = 60, N = 120, N = 180, N = 240, N = 360, N = 480, N = 600, N = 720, N = 840, N = 960, N = 1080, N = 1200, N = 1500, N = 1750, N = 2000) and tested whether use of different analyses continued to produce deviating outcomes. We found that sample size did not significantly influence the effects of inconsistent analytic strategy when no group-level effect was included but found strategy-dependent effects when group-level effects were simulated. These findings suggest that confounds incurred by inconsistent analyses remain stable in the face of sample size variation, but only under specific circumstances with overall robustness strongly hinging on the relationship between experimental design and choice of analyses. This supports the view that such variations reflect a more fundamental confound in psychological science-the measurement of a single process by multiple methods.

Indexed as

Extinction, PsychologicalGalvanic Skin ResponseClinical Trials as TopicFearHumansLearningSample Size

Identifiers

PMID35609058
PMCPMC9128987
OpenAlexW4281383919

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.