Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychophysiology. 2016 May 11;53(8):1241–1255. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12663

Table 4.

Internal Consistency and Temporal Stability of Corrugator Potentiation/Modulation by Task and Quantification Method

TASK: NPU QUANTIFICATION: Raw Scores in Time Domain QUANTIFICATION: Power in Frequency Domain
Internal Consistency
 Predictable Potentiation c .45 [.20, .63]* −.25 [−.49, .09]
 Unpredictable Potentiation c −.18 [−.45, .17] −.64 [−.75, −.47]
Temporal Stability
 Predictable Potentiation .51 [.35, .64]* .35 [.17, .51]*
 Unpredictable Potentiation c .27 [.09, .44]* .00 [−.19, .19]
TASK: Affective Picture Viewing QUANTIFICATION: Raw Scores in Time Domain QUANTIFICATION: Power in Frequency Domain
Internal Consistency
 Pleasant Modulation c .21 [−.12, .45] −.46 [−.63, −.22]
 Unpleasant Modulation .54 [.33, .68]* .44 [.20, .62]*
Temporal Stability
 Pleasant Modulation .20 [.02, .36]* .30 [.12, .46]*
 Unpleasant Modulation .56 [.42, .67]* .54 [.39, .65]*

NOTES: Table cells contain estimates of internal consistency (i.e., Spearman brown corrected Pearson correlations between odd and even trials) and temporal stability (Pearson correlations between study visit 1 and 2) for corrugator potentiation (vs. no shock) or modulation (vs. neutral picture) for the two tasks and two quantification methods. We also report 95% confidence intervals for these correlations in brackets.

*

Indicates significant (non-zero) correlation (p< .05)

c

Indicates significant difference (p < .05) in psychometric property (i.e., internal consistency or temporal stability) between quantification methods of raw scores in time domain and power spectral density scores in the frequency domain.