Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, United States.
Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, United States.
Neuroimage. 2018 Jun;173:146-152. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.02.024. Epub 2018 Feb 16.
Advances in cognitive and affective neuroscience come largely from within-subjects comparisons, in which the functional significance of neural activity is determined by contrasting two or more experimental conditions. Clinical and social neuroscience studies have attempted to leverage between-subject variability in such condition differences to better understand psychopathology and other individual differences. Shifting from within-to between-subjects comparisons requires that measures have adequate internal consistency to function as individual difference variables. This is particularly relevant for difference scores-which have lower reliability. The field has assumed reasonable internal consistency of neural measures based on consistent findings across studies (i.e., if a within-subject difference in neural activity is robust, then it must be reliable). Using one of the most common fMRI paradigms in the clinical neuroscience literature (i.e., a face- and shape-matching task), in a large sample of adolescents (N = 139) we replicate a robust finding: amygdala activation is greater for faces than shapes. Moreover, we demonstrate that the internal consistency of the amygdala in face and shape blocks was excellent (Spearman-Brown corrected reliability [SB] > .94). However, the internal consistency of the activation difference between faces and shapes was nearly zero (SB = -.06). This reflected the fact that the amygdala response to faces and shapes was highly correlated (r = .97) across individuals. Increased neural activation to faces versus shapes could not possibly function as an individual difference measure in these data-illustrating how neural activation can be robust within subjects, but unreliable as an individual difference measure. Strong and reproducible condition differences in neural activity are not necessarily well-suited for individual differences research-and neuroimaging studies should always report the internal consistency of, and correlations between, activations used in individual differences research.
认知和情感神经科学的进展主要来自于被试内比较,其中神经活动的功能意义是通过对比两种或多种实验条件来确定的。临床和社会神经科学研究试图利用这种条件差异中的被试间变异性来更好地理解精神病理学和其他个体差异。从被试内比较转变为被试间比较需要测量具有足够的内部一致性,以作为个体差异变量。对于差异分数(可靠性较低)来说,这一点尤为重要。该领域基于研究中的一致发现(即,如果神经活动的被试内差异是稳健的,那么它必须是可靠的),假设神经测量的合理内部一致性。在一项大型青少年样本(N=139)中,我们使用临床神经科学文献中最常见的 fMRI 范式之一(即面孔和形状匹配任务)复制了一个强有力的发现:与形状相比,杏仁核对面孔的激活更大。此外,我们证明了面孔和形状块中杏仁核的内部一致性非常好(Spearman-Brown 校正可靠性 [SB]>.94)。然而,面孔和形状之间激活差异的内部一致性几乎为零(SB=-.06)。这反映了这样一个事实,即个体之间杏仁核对面孔和形状的反应高度相关(r=.97)。在这些数据中,增加对面孔的神经激活而不是形状的激活不可能作为个体差异的衡量标准-说明了神经激活如何在被试内稳健,但作为个体差异的衡量标准不可靠。在神经活动中具有强而可重复的条件差异并不一定适合个体差异研究-神经影像学研究应该始终报告个体差异研究中使用的激活的内部一致性和相关性。