Key result
Heart rate variability continues to be falsely maintained as a measure of cardiac sympathetic outflow in applied psychological research despite being invalidated in physiological research for decades.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper highlights the problem of 'dead science' persisting in psychology, using the invalidation of HRV as a measure of cardiac sympathetic outflow as a case study.
Psychological theories often build from theoretically separate fields in the biosciences – physiology, biology, neuroscience, etc. – to situate human behavior within the body. However, these are increasingly sophisticated areas of research which rapidly change and adapt their evidence base. The current paper is a case study examining what happens to psychological research when its foundational biological context is invalidated or superseded. The example we use is heart rate variability (HRV) as a purported measure of cardiac sympathetic outflow. While objections to this technique within physiological research have been established and confirmed for decades, its false status continues to be maintained in applied psychological research. We review a combination of factors within scientific and publishing practice, practical and conceptual barriers to experimental interface, and personal/professional value of the invalidated theory in attempt to understand how dead science can be kept alive in psychological science.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heathers et al. (2017) conducted a review in Heart rate variability in psychology. Heart rate variability (HRV) as a measure of cardiac sympathetic outflow was evaluated. Heart rate variability continues to be falsely maintained as a measure of cardiac sympathetic outflow in applied psychological research despite being invalidated in physiological research for decades.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: