How representative are neuroimaging samples? Large-scale evidence for trait anxiety differences between fMRI and behaviour-only research participants. Charpentier, C. J., Faulkner, P., Pool, E. R., Ly, V., Tollenaar, M. S., Kluen, L. M., Fransen, A., Yamamori, Y., Lally, N., Mkrtchian, A., Valton, V., Huys, Q. J. M., Sarigiannidis, I., Morrow, K. A., Krenz, V., Kalbe, F., Cremer, A., Zerbes, G., Kausche, F. M., Wanke, N., Giarrizzo, A., Pulcu, E., Murphy, S., Kaltenboeck, A., Browning, M., Paul, L. K., Cools, R., Roelofs, K., Pessoa, L., Harmer, C. J., Chase, H. W., Grillon, C., Schwabe, L., Roiser, J. P., Robinson, O. J., & O'Doherty, J. P. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 16(10):1057–1070, September, 2021. Place: England
doi  abstract   bibtex   1 download  
Over the past three decades, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become crucial to study how cognitive processes are implemented in the human brain. However, the question of whether participants recruited into fMRI studies differ from participants recruited into other study contexts has received little to no attention. This is particularly pertinent when effects fail to generalize across study contexts: for example, a behavioural effect discovered in a non-imaging context not replicating in a neuroimaging environment. Here, we tested the hypothesis, motivated by preliminary findings (N = 272), that fMRI participants differ from behaviour-only participants on one fundamental individual difference variable: trait anxiety. Analysing trait anxiety scores and possible confounding variables from healthy volunteers across multiple institutions (N = 3317), we found robust support for lower trait anxiety in fMRI study participants, consistent with a sampling or self-selection bias. The bias was larger in studies that relied on phone screening (compared with full in-person psychiatric screening), recruited at least partly from convenience samples (compared with community samples), and in pharmacology studies. Our findings highlight the need for surveying trait anxiety at recruitment and for appropriate screening procedures or sampling strategies to mitigate this bias.
@article{charpentier_how_2021,
	title = {How representative are neuroimaging samples? {Large}-scale evidence for trait anxiety differences between {fMRI} and behaviour-only research participants.},
	volume = {16},
	copyright = {© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.},
	issn = {1749-5024 1749-5016},
	doi = {10.1093/scan/nsab057},
	abstract = {Over the past three decades, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become crucial to study how cognitive processes are implemented in the human  brain. However, the question of whether participants recruited into fMRI studies  differ from participants recruited into other study contexts has received little  to no attention. This is particularly pertinent when effects fail to generalize  across study contexts: for example, a behavioural effect discovered in a  non-imaging context not replicating in a neuroimaging environment. Here, we  tested the hypothesis, motivated by preliminary findings (N = 272), that fMRI  participants differ from behaviour-only participants on one fundamental  individual difference variable: trait anxiety. Analysing trait anxiety scores and  possible confounding variables from healthy volunteers across multiple  institutions (N = 3317), we found robust support for lower trait anxiety in fMRI  study participants, consistent with a sampling or self-selection bias. The bias  was larger in studies that relied on phone screening (compared with full  in-person psychiatric screening), recruited at least partly from convenience  samples (compared with community samples), and in pharmacology studies. Our  findings highlight the need for surveying trait anxiety at recruitment and for  appropriate screening procedures or sampling strategies to mitigate this bias.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {10},
	journal = {Social cognitive and affective neuroscience},
	author = {Charpentier, Caroline J. and Faulkner, Paul and Pool, Eva R. and Ly, Verena and Tollenaar, Marieke S. and Kluen, Lisa M. and Fransen, Aniek and Yamamori, Yumeya and Lally, Níall and Mkrtchian, Anahit and Valton, Vincent and Huys, Quentin J. M. and Sarigiannidis, Ioannis and Morrow, Kelly A. and Krenz, Valentina and Kalbe, Felix and Cremer, Anna and Zerbes, Gundula and Kausche, Franziska M. and Wanke, Nadine and Giarrizzo, Alessio and Pulcu, Erdem and Murphy, Susannah and Kaltenboeck, Alexander and Browning, Michael and Paul, Lynn K. and Cools, Roshan and Roelofs, Karin and Pessoa, Luiz and Harmer, Catherine J. and Chase, Henry W. and Grillon, Christian and Schwabe, Lars and Roiser, Jonathan P. and Robinson, Oliver J. and O'Doherty, John P.},
	month = sep,
	year = {2021},
	pmid = {33950220},
	pmcid = {PMC8483285},
	note = {Place: England},
	keywords = {*Anxiety Disorders, *Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Anxiety/diagnostic imaging, Attention, Humans, Neuroimaging, behaviour, neuroimaging, sampling bias, trait anxiety},
	pages = {1057--1070},
}
Downloads: 1
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021