ArticlePloS one2024
Introducing the trier univalence neutrality ambivalence (TUNA) database: A picture database differentiating complex attitudes.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Put the control back in the control condition: are brown, pink, and white noise neutral control stimuli?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using validated stimulus material is crucial for ensuring research comparability and replicability. However, many databases rely solely on bidimensional valence ratings, ranging from negative to positive. While this material might be appropriate for certain studies, it does not reflect the complexity of attitudes and therefore might hamper the unambiguous interpretation of some study results. In fact, most databases cannot differentiate between neutral (i.e., neither positive nor negative) and ambivalent (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative) attitudes. Consequently, even presumably univalent (only positive or negative) stimuli cannot be clearly distinguished from ambivalent ones when selected via bipolar rating scales. In the present research, we introduce the Trier Univalence Neutrality Ambivalence (TUNA) database, a database containing 304,262 validation ratings from heterogeneous samples of 3,232 participants and at least 20 (M = 27.3, SD = 4.84) ratings per self-report scale per picture for a variety of attitude objects on split semantic differential scales. As these scales measure positive and negative evaluations independently, the TUNA database allows to distinguish univalence, neutrality, and ambivalence (i.e., potential ambivalence). TUNA also goes beyond previous databases by validating the stimulus materials on affective outcomes such as experiences of conflict (i.e., felt ambivalence), arousal, anger, disgust, and empathy. The TUNA database consists of 796 pictures and is compatible with other popular databases. It sets a focus on food pictures in various forms (e.g., raw vs. cooked, non-processed vs. highly processed), but includes pictures of other objects that are typically used in research to study univalent (e.g., flowers) and ambivalent (e.g., money, cars) attitudes for comparison. Furthermore, to facilitate the stimulus selection the TUNA database has an accompanying desktop app that allows easy stimulus selection via a multitude of filter options.
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.