ArticleeLife2022
Robust group- but limited individual-level (longitudinal) reliability and insights into cross-phases response prediction of conditioned fear.
Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Dynamics of Fear-Generalization Processes and Their Predictive Value for the Development of Anxiety-Related Psychopathology in Adolescents and Adults: A Study Protocol for a Longitudinal Study.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026Article
- Intraindividual Variability Matters for the Correspondence Between Subjective Arousal, Valence, and Physiological Responses.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Neural correlates of human fear conditioning and sources of variability in 2199 individuals.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Mechanisms of Change in Exposure Therapy for Anxiety and Related Disorders: A Research Agenda.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- Article
- Impact of ERP Reliability Cutoffs on Sample Characteristics and Effect Sizes: Performance-Monitoring ERPs in Psychosis and Healthy Controls.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Probing the neurocardiac circuit in trauma and posttraumatic stress.Journal of psychiatric research · 2024Article
- Enhancing precision in human neuroscience.eLife · 2023Review
- Improving the Reliability of Cognitive Task Measures: A Narrative Review.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2023Review
- Article
- 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Here, we follow the call to target measurement reliability as a key prerequisite for individual-level predictions in translational neuroscience by investigating (1) longitudinal reliability at the individual and (2) group level, (3) internal consistency and (4) response predictability across experimental phases. One hundred and twenty individuals performed a fear conditioning paradigm twice 6 months apart. Analyses of skin conductance responses, fear ratings and blood oxygen level dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD fMRI) with different data transformations and included numbers of trials were conducted. While longitudinal reliability was rather limited at the individual level, it was comparatively higher for acquisition but not extinction at the group level. Internal consistency was satisfactory. Higher responding in preceding phases predicted higher responding in subsequent experimental phases at a weak to moderate level depending on data specifications. In sum, the results suggest that while individual-level predictions are meaningful for (very) short time frames, they also call for more attention to measurement properties in the field.
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.