Literature DB >> 29458188

Robust is not necessarily reliable: From within-subjects fMRI contrasts to between-subjects comparisons.

Zachary P Infantolino1, Katherine R Luking2, Colin L Sauder3, John J Curtin4, Greg Hajcak5.   

Abstract

Advances in cognitive and affective neuroscience come largely from within-subjects comparisons, in which the functional significance of neural activity is determined by contrasting two or more experimental conditions. Clinical and social neuroscience studies have attempted to leverage between-subject variability in such condition differences to better understand psychopathology and other individual differences. Shifting from within-to between-subjects comparisons requires that measures have adequate internal consistency to function as individual difference variables. This is particularly relevant for difference scores-which have lower reliability. The field has assumed reasonable internal consistency of neural measures based on consistent findings across studies (i.e., if a within-subject difference in neural activity is robust, then it must be reliable). Using one of the most common fMRI paradigms in the clinical neuroscience literature (i.e., a face- and shape-matching task), in a large sample of adolescents (N = 139) we replicate a robust finding: amygdala activation is greater for faces than shapes. Moreover, we demonstrate that the internal consistency of the amygdala in face and shape blocks was excellent (Spearman-Brown corrected reliability [SB] > .94). However, the internal consistency of the activation difference between faces and shapes was nearly zero (SB = -.06). This reflected the fact that the amygdala response to faces and shapes was highly correlated (r = .97) across individuals. Increased neural activation to faces versus shapes could not possibly function as an individual difference measure in these data-illustrating how neural activation can be robust within subjects, but unreliable as an individual difference measure. Strong and reproducible condition differences in neural activity are not necessarily well-suited for individual differences research-and neuroimaging studies should always report the internal consistency of, and correlations between, activations used in individual differences research.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adolescence; Amygdala; Faces; Internal reliability; fMRI

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29458188      PMCID: PMC5912348          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  25 in total

1.  Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate.

Authors:  Christopher R Genovese; Nicole A Lazar; Thomas Nichols
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala.

Authors:  Joseph LeDoux
Journal:  Cell Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.046

3.  Assessment of spatial normalization of whole-brain magnetic resonance images in children.

Authors:  Marko Wilke; Vincent J Schmithorst; Scott K Holland
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Variation of human amygdala response during threatening stimuli as a function of 5'HTTLPR genotype and personality style.

Authors:  Alessandro Bertolino; Giampiero Arciero; Valeria Rubino; Valeria Latorre; Mariapia De Candia; Viridiana Mazzola; Giuseppe Blasi; Grazia Caforio; Ahmad Hariri; Bhaskar Kolachana; Marcello Nardini; Daniel R Weinberger; Tommaso Scarabino
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 13.382

Review 5.  Neuronal circuits for fear and anxiety.

Authors:  Philip Tovote; Jonathan Paul Fadok; Andreas Lüthi
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 34.870

6.  Psychometrics and the neuroscience of individual differences: Internal consistency limits between-subjects effects.

Authors:  Greg Hajcak; Alexandria Meyer; Roman Kotov
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2017-04-27

7.  Association between amygdala response to emotional faces and social anxiety in autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Natalia M Kleinhans; Todd Richards; Kurt Weaver; L Clark Johnson; Jessica Greenson; Geraldine Dawson; Elizabeth Aylward
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  Reliability of composite-task measurements of holistic face processing.

Authors:  David A Ross; Jennifer J Richler; Isabel Gauthier
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2015-09

9.  Individual differences in typical reappraisal use predict amygdala and prefrontal responses.

Authors:  Emily M Drabant; Kateri McRae; Stephen B Manuck; Ahmad R Hariri; James J Gross
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2008-10-18       Impact factor: 13.382

10.  Internal Consistency of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Electroencephalography Measures of Reward in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence.

Authors:  Katherine R Luking; Brady D Nelson; Zachary P Infantolino; Colin L Sauder; Greg Hajcak
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging       Date:  2016-12-19
View more
  37 in total

1.  Incorporating neurophysiological measures into clinical assessments: Fundamental challenges and a strategy for addressing them.

Authors:  Christopher J Patrick; William G Iacono; Noah C Venables
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2019-03-21

2.  What Is the Test-Retest Reliability of Common Task-Functional MRI Measures? New Empirical Evidence and a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Maxwell L Elliott; Annchen R Knodt; David Ireland; Meriwether L Morris; Richie Poulton; Sandhya Ramrakha; Maria L Sison; Terrie E Moffitt; Avshalom Caspi; Ahmad R Hariri
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-06-03

3.  Dopamine Enhances Item Novelty Detection via Hippocampal and Associative Recall via Left Lateral Prefrontal Cortex Mechanisms.

Authors:  Mareike Clos; Nico Bunzeck; Tobias Sommer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Visual cortical regions show sufficient test-retest reliability while salience regions are unreliable during emotional face processing.

Authors:  Timothy J McDermott; Namik Kirlic; Elisabeth Akeman; James Touthang; Kelly T Cosgrove; Danielle C DeVille; Ashley N Clausen; Evan J White; Rayus Kuplicki; Robin L Aupperle
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-06-20       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Amygdala functional connectivity in the acute aftermath of trauma prospectively predicts severity of posttraumatic stress symptoms.

Authors:  Emily L Belleau; Lauren E Ehret; Jessica L Hanson; Karen J Brasel; Christine L Larson; Terri A deRoon-Cassini
Journal:  Neurobiol Stress       Date:  2020-04-01

6.  Event-related potentials to threat of predictable and unpredictable shock.

Authors:  Annmarie MacNamara; Blake Barley
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Linking Amygdala Persistence to Real-World Emotional Experience and Psychological Well-Being.

Authors:  Nikki A Puccetti; Stacey M Schaefer; Carien M van Reekum; Anthony D Ong; David M Almeida; Carol D Ryff; Richard J Davidson; Aaron S Heller
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Reward processing in certain versus uncertain contexts in schizophrenia: An event-related potential (ERP) study.

Authors:  Peter E Clayson; Jonathan K Wynn; Zachary P Infantolino; Greg Hajcak; Michael F Green; William P Horan
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2019-11

9.  Optimizing assessments of post-error slowing: A neurobehavioral investigation of a flanker task.

Authors:  Hans S Schroder; Stefanie Nickels; Emilia Cardenas; Micah Breiger; Sarah Perlo; Diego A Pizzagalli
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 4.016

10.  Affective brain patterns as multivariate neural correlates of cardiovascular disease risk.

Authors:  Peter J Gianaros; Thomas E Kraynak; Dora C-H Kuan; James J Gross; Kateri McRae; Ahmad R Hariri; Stephen B Manuck; Javier Rasero; Timothy D Verstynen
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.