ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
The Socio-emotional preference task in major depressive disorder: ERP evidence of social appraisal dysfunction.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch has demonstrated that some individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit distorted social appraisal. This study aimed to explore the neuroelectrophysiological mechanisms of emotional processing bias in MDD and thus to understand their functional properties of social appraisal.
methodsThirty-four MDD patients (18 Female/16 Male) and 34 healthy controls (HCs) (17 Female/17 Male) completed the Socio-emotional Preference Task (SePT). The behavioral and event-related potentials (ERP) data were analyzed.
resultsThe behavioral results showed that the MDD group showed longer reaction times (RTs) to negative (P = 0.027, η2 = 0.072) and positive (P = 0.002, η2 = 0.140) stimuli compared to the HCs group, preferring negative stimuli (P = 0.018, η2 = 0.082). The ERP data indicated that the MDD group exhibited higher P200 amplitudes for negative (P = 0.028, η2 = 0.071) and neutral (P = 0.032, η2 = 0.068) stimuli compared to the HCs group. Additionally, they showed higher LPP amplitudes for negative (P = 0.004, η2 = 0.116) and positive (P = 0.025, η2 = 0.159) stimuli, with longer LPP latencies for negative stimuli (P = 0.039, η2 = 0.056). In the MDD group, multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that LPP amplitudes were positively correlated with RTs for positive stimuli (B = 0.009, P = 0.023) and negatively correlated with RTs for negative stimuli (B = -0.008, P = 0.008). Conversely, P200 amplitudes were negatively correlated with RTs for negative stimuli (B = -0.005, P = 0.050) but positively correlated with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) scores (B = 0.337, P = 0.032). Moreover, HDRS-17 scores positively correlated with the self-reported preference for negative stimuli (B = 6.345, P = 0.009) but negatively correlated with the self-reported preference for positive stimuli (B = − 205.181, P < 0.001).
conclusionMDD prefer negative stimuli consistent with negative self-schema, allocating more resources from early (P200) to late (LPP) stages, suggesting a tendency for processing fixation. RTs to positive and negative stimuli showed an association with LPP amplitudes. Separately, a bias toward negative and away from positive stimuli correlating with the severity of depressive symptoms.
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.