• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Psychophysiology >Empirically based comparisons of the reliability and validity of common quantification approaches for eyeblink startle potentiation in humans
【24h】

Empirically based comparisons of the reliability and validity of common quantification approaches for eyeblink startle potentiation in humans

机译：基于经验的人类眨眼惊吓增强的常见量化方法的信度和效度的基于经验的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Startle potentiation is a well-validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potentiation is widely used in clinical and affective science, and there are multiple approaches for its quantification. The three most commonly used approaches quantify startle potentiation as the increase in startle response from a neutral to threat condition based on (1) raw potentiation, (2) standardized potentiation, or (3) percent-change potentiation. These three quantification approaches may yield qualitatively different conclusions about effects of independent variables (IVs) on affect when within-or between-group differences exist for startle response in the neutral condition. Accordingly, we directly compared these quantification approaches in a shock-threat task using four IVs known to influence startle response in the no-threat condition: probe intensity, time (i.e., habituation), alcohol administration, and individual differences in general startle reactivity measured at baseline. We confirmed the expected effects of time, alcohol, and general startle reactivity on affect using self-reported fear/anxiety as a criterion. The percent-change approach displayed apparent artifact across all four IVs, which raises substantial concerns about its validity. Both raw and standardized potentiation approaches were stable across probe intensity and time, which supports their validity. However, only raw potentiation displayed effects that were consistent with a priori specifications and/or the self-report criterion for the effects of alcohol and general startle reactivity. Supplemental analyses of reliability and validity for each approach provided additional evidence in support of raw potentiation.
机译：惊吓增强是对负面影响的充分验证的翻译措施。惊吓增强作用广泛用于临床和情感科学，并且有多种量化方法。三种最常用的方法是根据（1）原始电位，（2）标准化电位或（3）百分比变化电位，将惊吓反应的强度量化为从中性到威胁状态的惊吓反应的增加。当在中性条件下对于惊吓反应存在组内或组间差异时，这三种量化方法可能会得出关于自变量（IV）对情感影响的定性不同结论。因此，我们使用已知在无威胁条件下影响惊吓反应的四个IV在冲击威胁任务中直接比较了这些量化方法：探针强度，时间（即习惯性），饮酒和测得的一般惊吓反应性的个体差异在基线。我们以自我报告的恐惧/焦虑为标准，确认了时间，酒精和一般惊吓反应对情绪的预期影响。百分比变化方法在所有四个IV中都显示出明显的伪像，这引起了对其有效性的重大担忧。原始增强方法和标准增强方法在探针强度和时间上都是稳定的，这支持了它们的有效性。然而，仅原始的增强作用显示出与先验规格和/或酒精和一般惊吓反应性的自我报告标准相一致的作用。对每种方法的信度和效度的补充分析提供了支持原始增强作用的其他证据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号