Healthy decisions in the cued-attribute food choice paradigm have high test-retest reliability.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Barakchian Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8213742 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Healthy decisions in the cued-attribute food choice paradigm have high test-retest reliability.
Barakchian Zahra Z Beharelle Anjali Raja AR Hare Todd A TA
Scientific reports 20210618 1
Food choice paradigms are commonly used to study decision mechanisms, individual differences, and intervention efficacy. Here, we measured behavior from twenty-three healthy young adults who completed five repetitions of a cued-attribute food choice paradigm over two weeks. This task includes cues prompting participants to explicitly consider the healthiness of the food items before making a selection, or to choose naturally based on whatever freely comes to mind. We found that the average patte ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We examined the reliability of measures of fMRI, subjective, and cardiovascular reactions to standardized versions of a Stroop color-word task and a multisource interference task. A sample of 14 men and 12 women (30-49 years old) completed the tasks on two occasions, separated by a median of 88 days. The reliability of fMRI BOLD signal changes in brain areas engaged by the tasks was moderate, and aggregating fMRI BOLD signal changes across the tasks improved test-retest reliability metrics. These metrics included voxel-wise intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and overlap ratio statistics. Task-aggregated ratings of subjective arousal, valence, and control, as well as cardiovascular reactions evoked by the tasks showed ICCs of 0.57 to 0.87 (ps < .001), indicating moderate-to-strong reliability. These findings support using these tasks as a battery for fMRI studies of cardiovascular reactivity.
| S-EPMC3376244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Functional connectivity (FC) has become a leading method for resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) analysis. However, the majority of the previous studies utilized pairwise, temporal synchronization-based FC. Recently, high-order FC (HOFC) methods were proposed with the idea of computing "correlation of correlations" to capture high-level, more complex associations among the brain regions. There are two types of HOFC. The first type is topographical profile similarity-based HOFC (tHOFC) and its variant, associated HOFC (aHOFC), for capturing different levels of HOFC. Instead of measuring the similarity of the original rs-fMRI signals with the traditional FC (low-order FC, or LOFC), tHOFC measures the similarity of LOFC profiles (i.e., a set of LOFC values between a region and all other regions) between each pair of brain regions. The second type is dynamics-based HOFC (dHOFC) which defines the quadruple relationship among every four brain regions by first calculating two pairwise dynamic LOFC "time series" and then measuring their temporal synchronization (i.e., temporal correlation of the LOFC fluctuations, not the BOLD fluctuations). Applications have shown the superiority of HOFC in both disease biomarker detection and individualized diagnosis than LOFC. However, no study has been carried out for the assessment of test-retest reliability of different HOFC metrics. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the reliability of the two types of HOFC methods using test-retest rs-fMRI data from 25 (12 females, age 24.48 ± 2.55 years) young healthy adults with seven repeated scans (with interval = 3-8 days). We found that all HOFC metrics have satisfactory reliability, specifically (1) fair-to-good for tHOFC and aHOFC, and (2) fair-to-moderate for dHOFC with relatively strong connectivity strength. We further give an in-depth analysis of the biological meanings of each HOFC metric and highlight their differences compared to the LOFC from the aspects of cross-level information exchanges, within-/between-network connectivity, and modulatory connectivity. In addition, how the dynamic analysis parameter (i.e., sliding window length) affects dHOFC reliability is also investigated. Our study reveals unique functional associations characterized by the HOFC metrics. Guidance and recommendations for future applications and clinical research using HOFC are provided. This study has made a further step toward unveiling more complex human brain connectome.
| S-EPMC5539178 | biostudies-other
Project description:Dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) has been increasingly used to characterize the brain transient temporal functional patterns and their alterations in diseased brains. Meanwhile, naturalistic neuroimaging paradigms have been an emerging approach for cognitive neuroscience with high ecological validity. However, the test-retest reliability of dFC in naturalistic paradigm neuroimaging is largely unknown. To address this issue, we examined the test-retest reliability of dFC in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) under natural viewing condition. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of four dFC statistics including standard deviation (Std), coefficient of variation (COV), amplitude of low frequency fluctuation (ALFF), and excursion (Excursion) were used to measure the test-retest reliability. The test-retest reliability of dFC in naturalistic viewing condition was then compared with that under resting state. Our experimental results showed that: (a) Global test-retest reliability of dFC was much lower than that of static functional connectivity (sFC) in both resting-state and naturalistic viewing conditions; (b) Both global and local (including visual, limbic and default mode networks) test-retest reliability of dFC could be significantly improved in naturalistic viewing condition compared to that in resting state; (c) There existed strong negative correlation between sFC and dFC, weak negative correlation between dFC and dFC-ICC (i.e., ICC of dFC), as well as weak positive correlation between dFC-ICC and sFC-ICC (i.e., ICC of sFC). The present study provides novel evidence for the promotion of naturalistic paradigm fMRI in functional brain network studies.
| S-EPMC8837589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFunctional MRI (fMRI) tasks are increasingly being used to advance knowledge of the etiology and maintenance of obesity and eating disorders. Thus, understanding the test-retest reliability of BOLD signal contrasts from these tasks is important.ObjectivesTo evaluate test-retest reliability of responses in reward-related brain regions to food receipt paradigms (palatable tastes, anticipated palatable tastes), food picture paradigms (high-calorie food pictures), a monetary reward paradigm (winning money and anticipating winning money), and a thin female model picture paradigm (thin female model pictures).MethodWe conducted secondary univariate contrast-based analyses in data drawn from 4 repeated-measures fMRI studies. Participants (Study 1: N = 60, mean [M] age = 15.2 ± 1.1 y; Study 2: N = 109, M age = 15.1 ± 0.9 y; Study 3: N = 39, M age = 21.2 ± 3.7 y; Study 4: N = 62, M age = 29.7 ± 6.2 y) completed the same tasks over 3-wk to 3-y test-retest intervals. Studies 3 and 4 included participants with eating disorders and obesity, respectively.ResultsTest-retest reliability of the food receipt and food picture paradigms was poor, with average ICC values ranging from 0.07 to 0.20. The monetary reward paradigm and the thin female model picture paradigm also showed poor test-retest reliability: average ICC values 0.21 and 0.12, respectively. Although several regions demonstrated moderate to good test-retest reliability, these results did not replicate across studies using similar paradigms. In Studies 3 and 4, but not Study 1, test-retest reliability in visual processing regions was moderate to good when contrasting single conditions with a low-level baseline.ConclusionsResults underscore the importance of examining the temporal reliability of fMRI tasks and call for the development and use of well-validated standardized fMRI tasks in eating- and obesity-related studies that can provide more reliable measures of neural activation. The trials were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02084836, NCT01949636, NCT03261050, and NCT03375853.
| S-EPMC8326039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantitative sensory testing (QST) allows researchers to evaluate associations between noxious stimuli and acute pain in clinical populations and healthy participants. Despite its widespread use, our understanding of QST's reliability is limited, as reliability studies have used small samples and restricted time windows. We examined the reliability of pain ratings in response to noxious thermal stimulation in 171 healthy volunteers (n = 99 female, n = 72 male) who completed QST on multiple visits ranging from 1 day to 952 days between visits. On each visit, participants underwent an adaptive pain calibration in which they experienced 24 heat trials and rated pain intensity after stimulus offset on a 0 to 10 Visual Analog Scale. We used linear regression to determine pain threshold, pain tolerance, and the correlation between temperature and pain for each session and examined the reliability of these measures. Threshold and tolerance were moderately reliable (Intra-class correlation = .66 and .67, respectively; P < .001), whereas temperature-pain correlations had low reliability (Intra-class correlation = .23). In addition, pain tolerance was significantly more reliable in female participants than male participants, and we observed similar trends for other pain sensitive measures. Our findings indicate that threshold and tolerance are largely consistent across visits, whereas sensitivity to changes in temperature vary over time and may be influenced by contextual factors. PERSPECTIVE: This article assesses the reliability of an adaptive thermal pain calibration procedure. We find that pain threshold and tolerance are moderately reliable whereas the correlation between pain rating and stimulus temperature has low reliability. Female participants were more reliable than male participants on all pain sensitivity measures.
| S-EPMC9644806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Measuring brain activity during functional MRI (fMRI) tasks is one of the main tools to identify brain biomarkers of disease or neural substrates associated with specific symptoms. However, identifying correct biomarkers relies on reliable measures. Recently, poor reliability was reported for task-based fMRI measures. The present study aimed to demonstrate the reliability of a finger-tapping fMRI task across two sessions in healthy participants. Thirty-one right-handed healthy participants aged 18-60 years took part in two MRI sessions 3 weeks apart during which we acquired finger-tapping task-fMRI. We examined the overlap of activations between sessions using Dice similarity coefficients, assessing their location and extent. Then, we compared amplitudes calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in three sets of regions of interest (ROIs) in the motor network: literature-based ROIs (10-mm-radius spheres centred on peaks of an activation likelihood estimation), anatomical ROIs (regions as defined in an atlas) and ROIs based on conjunction analyses (superthreshold voxels in both sessions). Finger tapping consistently activated expected regions, for example, left primary sensorimotor cortices, premotor area and right cerebellum. We found good-to-excellent overlap of activations for most contrasts (Dice coefficients: .54-.82). Across time, ICCs showed large variability in all ROI sets (.04-.91). However, ICCs in most ROIs indicated fair-to-good reliability (mean = .52). The least specific contrast consistently yielded the best reliability. Overall, the finger-tapping task showed good spatial overlap and fair reliability of amplitudes on group level. Although caution is warranted in interpreting correlations of activations with other variables, identification of activated regions in response to a task and their between-group comparisons are still valid and important modes of analysis in neuroimaging to find population tendencies and differences.
| S-EPMC9990175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:No previous studies have investigated the test-retest reliability of tip, key, and palmar pinch force sense in healthy adults. The present study explores the test-retest reliability of tip, key, and palmar pinch force sense for different force levels in healthy adults during an ipsilateral force reproduction task. METHODS:Fifty-six healthy subjects were instructed to produce varying levels of reference forces (10, 30, and 50% maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)) using three types of pinches (tip pinch, palmar pinch, and key pinch) and to reproduce these forces using the same hand. The subjects were tested twice by the same experienced testers, 1?week apart. RESULTS:Based on the high values of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the tip pinch (0.783-0.895) and palmar pinch (0.752-0.903) force sense tests demonstrated good reliability for all the variables. The ICCs for the key pinch (0.712-0.881) indicated fair to good relative test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION:1) This study demonstrates that high test-retest reliability of tip, key, and palmar pinch force sense in healthy adults can be achieved using standardized positioning and the proposed approach. 2) According to the reliability measurements, 30 and 50% maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) are the most reliable pinch force sense levels.
| S-EPMC7099785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe FitMáx© was developed as a questionnaire-based instrument to estimate Cardiorespiratory Fitness (CRF) expressed as oxygen uptake at peak exercise (VO2peak). Test-retest reliability is a clinometric measurement property, which defines stability over time if multiple measurements are performed (i.e. reliability). The present study aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of the FitMáx©-questionnaire in different patient groups.Patients and methodsA total of 127 cardiac, pulmonary and oncology patients and healthy subjects aged 19-84 years who completed the questionnaire twice within an average of 18 days were included for analysis. Participants were in a stable clinical situation (no acute disease or participating in a training program). To determine the test-retest reliability, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Standard Error of the Measurement (SEM) was calculated between the first (T0) and second (T1) administration of the questionnaires.ResultsAn excellent agreement was found between the FitMáx©-questionnaire scores at T0 and T1, with an ICC of 0.97 (SEM 1.91) in the total study population and an ICC ranging from 0.93 to 0.98 (SEM 1.52-2.27) in the individual patient groups.ConclusionThe FitMáx©-questionnaire proves to be reliable and stable over time to estimate CRF of patients and healthy subjects. Trial registration NTR (Netherlands Trial Register), NL8846. Registered 25 August 2020, https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL8846.
| S-EPMC10767039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) was developed to provide a structured approach for collecting standardized symptomatology and health history information to allow researchers and clinicians to determine whether a patient meets the diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), and/or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the DSQ. METHODS:Test-retest reliability of the measure was examined with a sample of 26 adults self-identifying as having either ME/CFS, ME and/or CFS and 25 adults who did not self-identify as having these illnesses and were otherwise healthy controls. RESULTS:Overall, the majority of items on the DSQ exhibited good to excellent test-retest reliability, with Pearson's or kappa correlation coefficients that were 0.70 or higher. CONCLUSIONS:Thus, the present study suggests that the DSQ is a reliable diagnostic measure that can provide a standardized way of examining illness constructs and symptomatology among patients who identify as having ME/CFS, ME and/or CFS.
| S-EPMC4788471 | biostudies-other
Project description:Regression dynamic causal modeling (rDCM) is a novel and computationally highly efficient method for inferring effective connectivity at the whole-brain level. While face and construct validity of rDCM have already been demonstrated, here we assessed its test-retest reliability-a test-theoretical property of particular importance for clinical applications-together with group-level consistency of connection-specific estimates and consistency of whole-brain connectivity patterns over sessions. Using the Human Connectome Project dataset for eight different paradigms (tasks and rest) and two different parcellation schemes, we found that rDCM provided highly consistent connectivity estimates at the group level across sessions. Second, while test-retest reliability was limited when averaging over all connections (range of mean intraclass correlation coefficient 0.24-0.42 over tasks), reliability increased with connection strength, with stronger connections showing good to excellent test-retest reliability. Third, whole-brain connectivity patterns by rDCM allowed for identifying individual participants with high (and in some cases perfect) accuracy. Comparing the test-retest reliability of rDCM connectivity estimates with measures of functional connectivity, rDCM performed favorably-particularly when focusing on strong connections. Generally, for all methods and metrics, task-based connectivity estimates showed greater reliability than those from the resting state. Our results underscore the potential of rDCM for human connectomics and clinical applications.
| S-EPMC8959103 | biostudies-literature