IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Luke J Ney & Patrick A F Laing & Trevor Steward & Daniel V Zuj & Simon Dymond & Ben Harrison & Bronwyn Graham & Kim L Felmingham, 2022. "Methodological implications of sample size and extinction gradient on the robustness of fear conditioning across different analytic strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-22, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268814
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268814
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268814&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268814?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniela Schiller & Marie-H. Monfils & Candace M. Raio & David C. Johnson & Joseph E. LeDoux & Elizabeth A. Phelps, 2010. "Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7277), pages 49-53, January.
    2. Filip Melinscak & Dominik R Bach, 2020. "Computational optimization of associative learning experiments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mouna Maroun & Alexandra Kavushansky & Andrew Holmes & Cara Wellman & Helen Motanis, 2012. "Enhanced Extinction of Aversive Memories by High-Frequency Stimulation of the Rat Infralimbic Cortex," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-8, May.
    2. Megan E. Speer & Sandra Ibrahim & Daniela Schiller & Mauricio R. Delgado, 2021. "Finding positive meaning in memories of negative events adaptively updates memory," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Yoav Kessler & Susan Vandermorris & Nigel Gopie & Alexander Daros & Gordon Winocur & Morris Moscovitch, 2014. "Divided Attention Improves Delayed, but Not Immediate Retrieval of a Consolidated Memory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-6, March.
    4. Simon P Orozco & Scott T Albert & Reza Shadmehr, 2021. "Adaptive control of movement deceleration during saccades," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-30, July.
    5. Cecilia Forcato & María L C Rodríguez & María E Pedreira, 2011. "Repeated Labilization-Reconsolidation Processes Strengthen Declarative Memory in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-14, August.
    6. Ella Gabitov & Arnaud Boutin & Basile Pinsard & Nitzan Censor & Stuart M Fogel & Geneviève Albouy & Bradley R King & Julie Carrier & Leonardo G Cohen & Avi Karni & Julien Doyon, 2019. "Susceptibility of consolidated procedural memory to interference is independent of its active task-based retrieval," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Amy L Cochran & Josh M Cisler, 2019. "A flexible and generalizable model of online latent-state learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-31, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268814. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.