Research ExplorerPublicationsNavigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions i...

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

Standard

Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research. / Lonsdorf, Tina B; Klingelhöfer-Jens, Maren; Andreatta, Marta; Beckers, Tom; Chalkia, Anastasia; Gerlicher, Anna; Jentsch, Valerie L; Meir Drexler, Shira; Mertens, Gaetan; Richter, Jan; Sjouwerman, Rachel; Wendt, Julia; Merz, Christian J.

In: ELIFE, Vol. 8, 16.12.2019.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Lonsdorf, TB, Klingelhöfer-Jens, M, Andreatta, M, Beckers, T, Chalkia, A, Gerlicher, A, Jentsch, VL, Meir Drexler, S, Mertens, G, Richter, J, Sjouwerman, R, Wendt, J & Merz, CJ 2019, 'Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research', ELIFE, vol. 8. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52465

APA

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. (2019). Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research. ELIFE, 8. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52465

Vancouver

Lonsdorf TB, Klingelhöfer-Jens M, Andreatta M, Beckers T, Chalkia A, Gerlicher A et al. Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research. ELIFE. 2019 Dec 16;8. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52465

Bibtex

@article{e9b8e8c27f1044108eff5440e5832305,
title = "Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research",
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.",
author = "Lonsdorf, {Tina B} and Maren Klingelh{\"o}fer-Jens and Marta Andreatta and Tom Beckers and Anastasia Chalkia and Anna Gerlicher and Jentsch, {Valerie L} and {Meir Drexler}, Shira and Gaetan Mertens and Jan Richter and Rachel Sjouwerman and Julia Wendt and Merz, {Christian J}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2019, Lonsdorf et al.",
year = "2019",
month = dec,
day = "16",
doi = "10.7554/eLife.52465",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "ELIFE",
issn = "2050-084X",
publisher = "eLife Sciences Publications",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research

AU - Lonsdorf, Tina B

AU - Klingelhöfer-Jens, Maren

AU - Andreatta, Marta

AU - Beckers, Tom

AU - Chalkia, Anastasia

AU - Gerlicher, Anna

AU - Jentsch, Valerie L

AU - Meir Drexler, Shira

AU - Mertens, Gaetan

AU - Richter, Jan

AU - Sjouwerman, Rachel

AU - Wendt, Julia

AU - Merz, Christian J

N1 - © 2019, Lonsdorf et al.

PY - 2019/12/16

Y1 - 2019/12/16

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.7554/eLife.52465

DO - 10.7554/eLife.52465

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 31841112

VL - 8

JO - ELIFE

JF - ELIFE

SN - 2050-084X

ER -