Abstract
Fear conditioning, also termed threat conditioning, is a commonly used learning model with clinical relevance. Quantification of threat conditioning in humans often relies on conditioned autonomic responses such as skin conductance responses (SCR), pupil size responses (PSR), heart period responses (HPR), or respiration amplitude responses (RAR), which are usually analyzed separately. Here, we investigate whether inter-individual variability in differential conditioned responses, averaged across acquisition, exhibits a multi-dimensional structure, and the extent to which their linear combination could enhance the precision of inference on whether threat conditioning has occurred. In a mega-analytic approach, we re-analyze nine data sets including 256 individuals, acquired by the group of the last author, using standard routines in the framework of psychophysiological modeling (PsPM). Our analysis revealed systematic differences in effect size between measures across datasets, but no evidence for a multidimensional structure across various combinations of measures. We derive the statistically optimal weights for combining the four measures and subsets thereof, and we provide out-of-sample performance metrics for these weights, accompanied by bias-corrected confidence intervals. We show that to achieve the same statistical power, combining measures allows for a relevant reduction in sample size, which in a common scenario amounts to roughly 24%. To summarize, we demonstrate a one-dimensional structure of threat conditioning measures, systematic differences in effect size between measures, and provide weights for their optimal linear combination in terms of maximal retrodictive validity.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.