Cortex ( IF 3.6 ) Pub Date : 2020-06-18 , DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.031 Anastasia Chalkia 1 , Lukas Van Oudenhove 2 , Tom Beckers 1
In a highly influential report, Schiller et al. (2010) demonstrated long-lasting fear reduction in humans when conducting extinction training shortly following fear memory reactivation. While trying to experimentally replicate the critical conditions of Schiller et al. (2010, Experiment 1), we discovered several irregularities in their paper. Criteria for participant exclusion and the number of excluded participants were misreported; qualitative experimenter decisions actually determined their participant inclusions. Moreover, their statistical analyses were internally inconsistent. After corresponding with the original authors, we received their original data files, allowing us to replicate the reported analyses to verify their results. Here, we report the results of seven separate sets of analyses, three replicating the analyses reported by Schiller et al. (2010) and four applying more principled approaches to participant exclusion, thus including different subsets of the total datasets available, to deduce the influence of specific exclusions and experimenter decisions on the results. For Experiment 1, we were mostly able to replicate the analyses contained in the original report when applying the same qualitative exclusions. However, we found that all of the differences in fear recovery between reactivation-extinction and regular extinction reported by Schiller et al. (2010) were dependent on the qualitative exclusions that they made. With any of the principled approaches to participant exclusion, the degree of fear recovery was highly similar between groups. For Experiment 2, a similar analysis was not possible due to a lack of available data for the excluded participants. Hence, we conducted a verification analysis on the original sample only, which failed to confirm the differences in fear recovery reported by Schiller et al. (2010). Together with the re-analyses, we report a number of additional issues with the way Schiller et al. (2010) processed, analyzed, and reported their data that indicate that their results are unreliable and flawed.
中文翻译:
使用再巩固更新机制防止人类恐惧的回归:席勒等人的验证报告。(2010)。
在一份极具影响力的报告中,席勒等人。(2010) 在恐惧记忆重新激活后不久进行灭绝训练时,证明了人类持久的恐惧减少。在尝试通过实验复制 Schiller 等人的临界条件时。(2010, Experiment 1),我们在他们的论文中发现了几个不规则之处。参与者排除标准和被排除参与者的数量被误报;定性实验者的决定实际上决定了他们的参与者包含物。此外,他们的统计分析内部不一致。在与原作者通信后,我们收到了他们的原始数据文件,使我们能够复制报告的分析以验证他们的结果。在这里,我们报告了七组独立分析的结果,三复制席勒等人报告的分析。(2010) 和四个应用更多原则性方法来排除参与者,从而包括可用总数据集的不同子集,以推断特定排除和实验者决定对结果的影响。对于实验 1,当应用相同的定性排除时,我们大多能够复制原始报告中包含的分析。然而,我们发现 Schiller 等人报告的重新激活-消退和常规消退之间恐惧恢复的所有差异。(2010) 依赖于他们所做的定性排除。使用任何排除参与者的原则性方法,各组之间的恐惧恢复程度非常相似。对于实验 2,由于缺乏被排除参与者的可用数据,无法进行类似的分析。因此,我们仅对原始样本进行了验证分析,未能证实 Schiller 等人报告的恐惧恢复差异。(2010)。与重新分析一起,我们报告了席勒等人的方式的一些额外问题。(2010) 处理、分析和报告了他们的数据,表明他们的结果不可靠且有缺陷。