Cited by 164Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research

Open access
Lonsdorf, Tina B, Klingelhöfer-Jens, Maren, Andreatta, Marta, Beckers, Tom, Chalkia, Anastasia, Gerlicher, Anna, Jentsch, Valerie L, Meir Drexler, Shira +5 more·2019·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In this report, we illustrate the considerable impact of researcher degrees of freedom with respect to exclusion of participants in paradigms with a learning element. We illustrate this empirically through case examples from human fear conditioning research, in which the exclusion of 'non-learners' and 'non-responders' is common - despite a lack of consensus on how to define these groups. We illustrate the substantial heterogeneity in exclusion criteria identified in a systematic literature search and highlight the potential problems and pitfalls of different definitions through case examples based on re-analyses of existing data sets. On the basis of these studies, we propose a consensus on evidence-based rather than idiosyncratic criteria, including clear guidelines on reporting details. Taken together, we illustrate how flexibility in data collection and analysis can be avoided, which will benefit the robustness and replicability of research findings and can be expected to be applicable to other fields of research that involve a learning element.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.52465

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Pavlov I 1927 Conditioned Reflexes Oxford University Press
  2. Sjouwerman R Scharfenort R Lonsdorf TB 2018 Individual differences in fear learning: specificity to trait-anxiety beyond other measures of negative affect and mediation via amygdala activation bioRxiv 10.1101/233528 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lonsdorf, T. B., Klingelhöfer-Jens, M., Andreatta, M., Beckers, T., Chalkia, A., Gerlicher, A., Jentsch, V. L., Meir Drexler, S., Mertens, G., Richter, J., Sjouwerman, R., Wendt, J., & Merz, C. J.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
  • Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • Universität Greifswald (DE)
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
Venue
eLife
Published
2019-12-16
Volume
8
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995231114
Cited by
164
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (LO 1980/2-1, LO 1980/1-1, Project B07 44541416, 316803389 - SFB1280, WE 5873/1-1, WE 5873/5-1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
researcher degrees of freedom, data exclusion, fear conditioning, non-responders, exclusion criteria, learning paradigms, reporting guidelines, replicability, robustness of results
MeSH terms
Adult, Conditioning, Psychological, Fear, Female, Humans, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review