ArticlePloS one2026
Beyond traditional stimuli: Validating AI-generated images for eliciting negative emotions in affect research.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The "synthetic validity" problem in AI-generated science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Responsible Stimulus Selection in Neuromarketing: A Critical Narrative Review and Normative Framework for Ethical, Sustainable, and Replicable Consumer Research.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Associations between perceived natural environmental features and physical activity intention: the mediating roles of perceived safety and perceived environmental restorativeness.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Foreground, midground, and restoration: EEG and preference responses to depth-controlled rural scenes.Frontiers in psychology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies of emotion often rely on standardized stimulus sets to elicit affective responses. Although established databases provide images with normative valence and arousal ratings, selecting suitable stimuli can be difficult when experiments require specific thematic or content constraints. This challenge is especially pronounced for negative stimuli, which are central to research on maladaptive emotions and behaviors in clinical contexts but are often scarce in necessary quantity or specificity. The present study evaluated the feasibility of using generative AI, specifically text-to-image generators, to create tailored negative and neutral affective stimuli. To assess whether these images can serve as alternatives to traditional stimuli, we compared their affective properties to those reported in standardized image databases. Across two studies, participants rated the valence and arousal of 160 and 200 AI-generated images. Our findings revealed that AI-generated negative and neutral images reproduced the characteristic inverse association between valence and arousal observed in standardized databases, with moderate to strong correlations between these dimensions. These results highlight the potential of generative AI as a practical methodological tool for creating customized affective stimuli aligned with specific research objectives and experimental designs.
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.