1
|
Vlieger R, Austin D, Apthorp D, Daskalaki E, Lensky A, Walton-Sonda D, Suominen H, Lueck CJ. The use of event-related potentials in the investigation of cognitive performance in people with Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic review. Brain Res 2024; 1832:148827. [PMID: 38403040 DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2024.148827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2023] [Revised: 02/20/2024] [Accepted: 02/22/2024] [Indexed: 02/27/2024]
Abstract
A biomarker of cognition in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) that is independent from the response of people with MS (PwMS) to test questions would provide a more holistic assessment of cognitive decline. One suggested method involves event-related potentials (ERPs). This systematic review tried to answer five questions about the use of ERPs in distinguishing PwMS from controls: which stimulus modality, which experimental paradigm, which electrodes, and which ERP components are most discriminatory, and whether amplitude or latency is a better measure. Our results show larger pooled effect sizes for visual stimuli than auditory stimuli, and larger pooled effect sizes for latency measurements than amplitude measurements. We observed great heterogeneity in methods and suggest that future research would benefit from more uniformity in methods and that results should be reported for the individual subtypes of PwMS. With more standardised methods, ERPs have the potential to be developed into a clinical tool in MS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin Vlieger
- School of Medicine and Psychology, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
| | - Duncan Austin
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Deborah Apthorp
- School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia; School of Computing, College of Engineering, Computing & Cybernetics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Elena Daskalaki
- School of Computing, College of Engineering, Computing & Cybernetics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Artem Lensky
- School of Engineering and Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT, Australia; School of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Dianne Walton-Sonda
- The ACT Health Library and Multimedia Service, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Hanna Suominen
- School of Medicine and Psychology, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; School of Computing, College of Engineering, Computing & Cybernetics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Department of Computing, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - Christian J Lueck
- School of Medicine and Psychology, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Primbs MA, Pennington CR, Lakens D, Silan MAA, Lieck DSN, Forscher PS, Buchanan EM, Westwood SJ. Are Small Effects the Indispensable Foundation for a Cumulative Psychological Science? A Reply to Götz et al. (2022). PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 2023; 18:508-512. [PMID: 36126652 PMCID: PMC10018048 DOI: 10.1177/17456916221100420] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
In the January 2022 issue of Perspectives, Götz et al. argued that small effects are "the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science." They supported their argument by claiming that (a) psychology, like genetics, consists of complex phenomena explained by additive small effects; (b) psychological-research culture rewards large effects, which means small effects are being ignored; and (c) small effects become meaningful at scale and over time. We rebut these claims with three objections: First, the analogy between genetics and psychology is misleading; second, p values are the main currency for publication in psychology, meaning that any biases in the literature are (currently) caused by pressure to publish statistically significant results and not large effects; and third, claims regarding small effects as important and consequential must be supported by empirical evidence or, at least, a falsifiable line of reasoning. If accepted uncritically, we believe the arguments of Götz et al. could be used as a blanket justification for the importance of any and all "small" effects, thereby undermining best practices in effect-size interpretation. We end with guidance on evaluating effect sizes in relative, not absolute, terms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maximilian A. Primbs
- Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud
University
- Maximilian A. Primbs, Behavioural Science
Institute, Radboud University
| | - Charlotte R. Pennington
- School of Psychology, Aston
University
- Institute of Health and
Neurodevelopment, Aston University
| | - Daniël Lakens
- Industrial Engineering and Innovation
Sciences, School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology
| | - Miguel Alejandro A. Silan
- Annecy Behavioral Science Lab,
Menthon-Saint-Bernard, France
- Development, Individual, Process,
Handicap, and Education Research Unit, Université Lumière Lyon 2
- Social and Political Psychology
Research Lab, University of the Philippines Diliman
| | | | - Patrick S. Forscher
- Research and Innovation Division,
Busara Center for Behavioral Economics, Nairobi, Kenya
| | | | - Samuel J. Westwood
- Department of Psychology, School of
Social Science, University of Westminster
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dattani S, Howard DM, Lewis CM, Sham PC. Clarifying the causes of consistent and inconsistent findings in genetics. Genet Epidemiol 2022; 46:372-389. [PMID: 35652173 PMCID: PMC9544854 DOI: 10.1002/gepi.22459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2022] [Revised: 04/12/2022] [Accepted: 04/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
As research in genetics has advanced, some findings have been unexpected or shown to be inconsistent between studies or datasets. The reasons these inconsistencies arise are complex. Results from genetic studies can be affected by various factors including statistical power, linkage disequilibrium, quality control, confounding and selection bias, as well as real differences from interactions and effect modifiers, which may be informative about the mechanisms of traits and disease. Statistical artefacts can manifest as differences between results but they can also conceal underlying differences, which implies that their critical examination is important for understanding the underpinnings of traits. In this review, we examine these factors and outline how they can be identified and conceptualised with structural causal models. We explain the consequences they have on genetic estimates, such as genetic associations, polygenic scores, family‐ and genome‐wide heritability, and describe methods to address them to aid in the estimation of true effects of genetic variation. Clarifying these factors can help researchers anticipate when results are likely to diverge and aid researchers' understanding of causal relationships between genes and complex traits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saloni Dattani
- Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.,Department of Psychiatry, Li Ka Shing (LKS) Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - David M Howard
- Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.,Division of Psychiatry, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Cathryn M Lewis
- Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.,Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Pak C Sham
- Department of Psychiatry, State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, and Centre for Panoromic Sciences, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Applied to video game violence, maximal positive controls is far from even a minimal demonstration: Comment on ( ). JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
5
|
Hilgard J. Still too good to be true: Reply to. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
6
|
Coles NA, Larsen JT. Letter to the editor: Claims about the effects of botulinum toxin on depression should raise some eyebrows. J Psychiatr Res 2021; 140:551-552. [PMID: 34045071 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.05.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Revised: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas A Coles
- Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Palo Alto, USA.
| | - Jeff T Larsen
- Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.
| |
Collapse
|