ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
Advancing affective stimuli databases: challenges and solutions.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
- Responsible Stimulus Selection in Neuromarketing: A Critical Narrative Review and Normative Framework for Ethical, Sustainable, and Replicable Consumer Research.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The talking heads attentional bias assessment task: A readily available, reliable, and effective task for assessing attentional bias.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Affective stimulus databases are integral elements in psychological and neuroscientific research, enabling the controlled induction of emotional states. However, despite significant progress, existing databases face methodological limitations that interfere with cross- study comparability and reproducibility. This review thoroughly examines modern affective stimulus databases across visual, auditory, textual, and multimodal domains, presenting their positive attributes and deficiencies. Key challenges include variability in stimulus standardization, inconsistencies in validation procedures, cultural specificity, and reliance on either categorical or dimensional emotion assessment methods. Additionally, issues related to stimulus diversity, duration control, and ecological validity further complicate the interpretation of results in psychophysiological studies. To address these challenges, we propose strategies for improving future databases, including the integration of standardized evaluation methodologies, the expansion of multimodal and culturally diverse stimuli, and the implementation of advanced technological solutions such as virtual reality and machine learning. Improving the structure of databases and maintaining consistent methodologies will increase the reliability and applicability of emotion research, ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of affective processes across different fields.
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.