ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Women with premenstrual syndrome exhibit bodily information processing and a moderate deficit in emotional interference functioning.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined women with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) during the late luteal phase, focusing on cognitive function under stress. Additionally, we investigated the association between cognitive performance and interoceptive processing at baseline. Acute stress was experimentally induced in women using the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST). We evaluated performance on the Emotional Face-Word Stroop task and the 3-Back task, comparing PMS and without PMS groups at pre-stress, post-stress, and recovery phases. Furthermore, we analyzed the association between baseline Emotional Interference and the Interoceptive Mismatch, which was defined as the discrepancy between interoceptive accuracy and sensibility. Mixed ANOVA revealed that, in the Emotional Face-Word Stroop task, the PMS group exhibited increased error rate without group differences in reaction time. Linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM) indicated subjective performance interference positively predicted incongruent reaction time, capturing individual variability beyond group effects. Conversely, in the 3-Back task, no group differences were observed, but LMM showed increased sensitivity from signal detection theory at post-stress and recovery phases, reflecting individual variability. Moreover, regression analysis revealed that greater Interoceptive Mismatch was significantly associated with lower Emotional Interference. This observation suggests that women with PMS exhibit a processing bias toward bodily sensations and emotions, reflecting a bottom-up style of cognitive processing. These results highlight the importance of understanding cognitive vulnerability in PMS from a multidimensional perspective, including interoception and subjective experiences. This understanding may contribute to the development of individualized support and preventive interventions for women with PMS.
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.