Abstract
Over the past three decades, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become crucial to study how cognitive processes are implemented in the human brain. However, the question of whether participants recruited into fMRI studies differ from participants recruited into other study contexts has received little to no attention. This is particularly pertinent when effects fail to generalize across study contexts: for example, a behavioural effect discovered in a non-imaging context not replicating in a neuroimaging environment. Here, we tested the hypothesis, motivated by preliminary findings (N = 272), that fMRI participants differ from behaviour-only participants on one fundamental individual difference variable: trait anxiety. Analysing trait anxiety scores and possible confounding variables from healthy volunteers across multiple institutions (N = 3317), we found robust support for lower trait anxiety in fMRI study participants, consistent with a sampling or self-selection bias. The bias was larger in studies that relied on phone screening (compared with full in-person psychiatric screening), recruited at least partly from convenience samples (compared with community samples), and in pharmacology studies. Our findings highlight the need for surveying trait anxiety at recruitment and for appropriate screening procedures or sampling strategies to mitigate this bias.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology , Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
2 Department of Psychology, University of Roehampton , London SW15 5PJ, UK
3 Department of Psychology, University of Geneva , Geneva 1205, Switzerland
4 Department of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University , Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands
5 Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London , London WC1N 3AZ, UK
6 Department of Psychology, University of Maryland , College Park, MD 20742, USA
7 Department of Cognitive Psychology, Universität , Hamburg 20146, Germany
8 Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford , Oxford OX3 7JX, UK
9 Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University , Nijmegen, 6525 AJ, The Netherlands
10 Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
11 National Institute of Mental Health , Bethesda, MD 20892, USA