Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41050789›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025

Advancing affective stimuli databases: challenges and solutions.

Marina M Gerges, Danila Shelepenkov, Vladimir Kosonogov

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marina M GergesInstitute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Danila ShelepenkovInstitute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Vladimir KosonogovAffective Psychophysiology Laboratory, Institute of Health Psychology, HSE University, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

affective scienceaffective stimulus databasesdatabasespsychophysiological researchstimuli

Identifiers

PMID41050789
PMCPMC12488428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.