ArticlePloS one2022
A test of affect processing bias in response to affect regulation.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study we merged methods from machine learning and human neuroimaging to test the role of self-induced affect processing states in biasing the affect processing of subsequent image stimuli. To test this relationship we developed a novel paradigm in which (n = 40) healthy adult participants observed affective neural decodings of their real-time functional magnetic resonance image (rtfMRI) responses as feedback to guide explicit regulation of their brain (and corollary affect processing) state towards a positive valence goal state. By this method individual differences in affect regulation ability were controlled. Attaining this brain-affect goal state triggered the presentation of pseudo-randomly selected affectively congruent (positive valence) or incongruent (negative valence) image stimuli drawn from the International Affective Picture Set. Separately, subjects passively viewed randomly triggered positively and negatively valent image stimuli during fMRI acquisition. Multivariate neural decodings of the affect processing induced by these stimuli were modeled using the task trial type (state- versus randomly-triggered) as the fixed-effect of a general linear mixed-effects model. Random effects were modeled subject-wise. We found that self-induction of a positive valence brain state significantly positively biased valence processing of subsequent stimuli. As a manipulation check, we validated affect processing state induction achieved by the image stimuli using independent psychophysiological response measures of hedonic valence and autonomic arousal. We also validated the predictive fidelity of the trained neural decoding models using brain states induced by an out-of-sample set of image stimuli. Beyond its contribution to our understanding of the neural mechanisms that bias affect processing, this work demonstrated the viability of novel experimental paradigms triggered by pre-defined cognitive states. This line of individual differences research potentially provides neuroimaging scientists with a valuable tool for exploring the roles and identities of intrinsic cognitive processing mechanisms that shape our perceptual processing of sensory stimuli.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.