4.5 Article

Test-retest reliability of infant event related potentials evoked by faces

Journal

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 20-26

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.03.030

Keywords

Test-retest reliability; Faces; Event Related Potentials; Infants

Funding

  1. Consortium on Individual Development (CID)
  2. Gravitation program of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science
  3. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [024.001.003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reliable measures are required to draw meaningful conclusions regarding developmental changes in longitudinal studies. Little is known, however, about the test-retest reliability of face-sensitive event related potentials (ERPs), a frequently used neural measure in infants. The aim of the current study is to investigate the test-retest reliability of ERPs typically evoked by faces in 9-10 month-old infants. The infants (N = 31) were presented with neutral, fearful and happy faces that contained only the lower or higher spatial frequency information. They were tested twice within two weeks. The present results show that the test-retest reliability of the face-sensitive ERP components is moderate (P400 and Nc) to substantial (N290). However, there is low test retest reliability for the effects of the specific experimental manipulations (i.e. emotion and spatial frequency) on the face-sensitive ERPs. To conclude, in infants the face-sensitive ERP components (i.e. N290, P400 and Nc) show adequate test-retest reliability, but not the effects of emotion and spatial frequency on these ERP components. We propose that further research focuses on investigating elements that might increase the test retest reliability, as adequate test-retest reliability is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions on individual developmental trajectories of the face-sensitive ERPs in infants.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available