Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Meta-analyses indicate differences in Pavlovian fear responses between anxious and non-anxious individuals using electrodermal activity (EDA). Recent research, however, has cast doubt on whether these effects are robust to different analytic choices. Using the multiverse approach conceived by Steegen et al. (2016), we surveyed analytic choices typically implemented in clinical fear conditioning research by conducting 1240 analyses reflecting different choice permutations. Only 1.45% of our analyses produced theoretically congruent statistically significant effects, and the strength and direction of the estimated effects varied substantially across EDA processing methods. We conclude that EDA-estimated fear learning differences are vulnerable to researcher degrees of freedom and make recommendations regarding which analytical choices should be approached with a high degree of caution.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2024.104598 | DOI Listing |