No evidence of conditioning of pupillary constriction despite overtraining
Diederick C. Niehorster; Stina Bengtsson; Niklas Brodin; Anders Rasmussen · 2022 · PeerJ
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract
Eyeblink conditioning is the most popular paradigm for studying classical conditioning in humans. But the fact that eyelids are under voluntary control means it is ultimately impossible to ascertain whether a blink response is ‘conditioned’ or a timed ‘voluntary’ blink response. In contrast, the pupillary response is an autonomic response, not under voluntary control. By conditioning the pupillary response, one might avoid potential volition-related confounds. Several attempts have been made to condition the pupillary constriction and dilation responses, with the earliest published attempts da
Abstract by Diederick C. Niehorster; Stina Bengtsson; Niklas Brodin; Anders Rasmussen, PeerJ (2022) — licensed CC BY 4.0.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
A Randomized Trial of Intraarterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Negative / Null Result ReportDuodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile
Negative / Null Result ReportStenting versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid-Artery Stenosis
Negative / Null Result ReportEffects of Combination Lipid Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Replication FailureA Randomized Trial of Bevacizumab for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma
Negative / Null Result ReportSpironolactone for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: DOAJ · DOI 10.7717/peerj.12948