ArticlePeerJ2022
Evaluation of film stimuli for the assessment of social-emotional processing: a pilot study.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evoked emotions in anorexia nervosa: neural and behavioural correlates of social-emotional processing.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
- Spatial Guidance Overrides Dynamic Saliency in VR: An Eye-Tracking Study on Gestalt Grouping Mechanisms and Visual Attention Patterns.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Pilot study of facial and bodily feedback.Neuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Difficulties in top-down and bottom-up emotion generation have been proposed to play a key role in the progression of psychiatric disorders. The aim of the current study was to develop more ecologically valid measures of top-down interpretation biases and bottom-up evoked emotional responses. Methods: A total of 124 healthy female participants aged 18-25 took part in the study. We evaluated two sets of 18 brief film clips. The first set of film clips presented ambiguous social situations designed to examine interpretation biases. Participants provided written interpretations of each ambiguous film clip which were subjected to sentiment analysis. We compared the films in terms of the valence of participants interpretations. The second set of film clips presented neutral and emotionally provoking social scenarios designed to elicit subjective and facial emotional responses. While viewing these film clips participants mood ratings and facial affect were recorded and analysed using exploratory factor analyses. Results: Most of the 18 ambiguous film clips were interpreted in the expected manner while still retaining some ambiguity. However, participants were more attuned to the negative cues in the ambiguous film clips and three film clips were identified as unambiguous. These films clips were deemed unsuitable for assessing interpretation bias. The exploratory factor analyses of participants' mood ratings and evoked facial affect showed that the positive and negative emotionally provoking film clips formed their own factors as expected. However, there was substantial cross-loading of the neutral film clips when participants' facial expression data was analysed. Discussion: A subset of the film clips from the two tasks could be used to assess top-down interpretation biases and bottom-up evoked emotional responses. Ambiguous negatively valenced film clips should have more subtle negative cues to avoid ceiling effects and to ensure there is enough room for interpretation.
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.