4.4 Article

Whose Signals Are Being Amplified? Toward a More Equitable Clinical Psychophysiology

Journal

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/21677026221112117

Keywords

electrophysiology; minority groups; prejudice; psychophysiology; racial and ethnic attitudes and relations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research using psychophysiological methods has potential for improving clinical assessment, identifying risk factors, and informing treatment. However, the unique methodological features of existing approaches limit inclusive research participation and result in exclusion of Black participants. Reflection and input from a wider range of affected individuals are needed to develop and refine new technologies.
Research using psychophysiological methods holds great promise for refining clinical assessment, identifying risk factors, and informing treatment. Unfortunately, unique methodological features of existing approaches limit inclusive research participation and, consequently, generalizability. In this brief overview and commentary, we provide a snapshot of the current state of representation in clinical psychophysiology with a focus on the forms and consequences of ongoing exclusion of Black participants. We illustrate issues of inequity and exclusion that are unique to clinical psychophysiology and consider intersections among social constructions of Blackness and biased design of current technology used to measure electroencephalography, skin conductance, and other signals. We then highlight work by groups dedicated to quantifying and addressing these limitations. We discuss the need for reflection and input from a wider variety of affected individuals to develop and refine new technologies given the risk of further widening disparities. Finally, we provide broad recommendations for clinical-psychophysiology research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available