Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms: A verification report of Schiller et al. (2010)
Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms: A verification report of Schiller et al. (2010)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.031
复制
发表时间：
2020-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Beckers, Tom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chalkia, Anastasia;Van Oudenhove, Lukas;Beckers, Tom
在一份非常有影响力的报告中，Schiller等人（2010）证明了在恐惧记忆重新激活后不久进行灭绝训练时，人类的长期恐惧减少。在试图实验性地复制Schiller等人（2010，实验1）的临界条件时，我们在他们的论文中发现了一些不规则性。参与者排除的标准和被排除的参与者的数量被误报;定性实验人员的决定实际上决定了他们的参与者入选。此外，它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，三组重复了Schiller等人（2010）报告的分析，四组应用了更有原则的参与者排除方法，从而包括可用的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，我们基本上能够重复原始报告中包含的分析。然而，我们发现，席勒等人（2010）报道的再激活-消退和常规消退之间的恐惧恢复的所有差异都取决于他们所做的定性排除。对于任何一种排除参与者的原则性方法，两组之间的恐惧恢复程度都非常相似。对于实验2，由于缺乏被排除的参与者的可用数据，不可能进行类似的分析。因此，我们仅对原始样本进行了验证分析，未能证实Schiller等人（2010）报告的恐惧恢复差异。与重新分析一起，我们报告了Schiller等人（2010）处理，分析和报告数据的方式的一些其他问题，这些问题表明他们的结果是不可靠和有缺陷的。(c)2020爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
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. (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.