ArticleBMC psychology2026
Stage-specific changes in schematic facial emotion recognition following childhood trauma: an ERP study.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildhood trauma has been linked to emotional face processing, but its association with stages of emotional face processing remains unclear. The present study used schematic emotional facial cues as simplified stimuli and event-related potentials to examine early face sensitive activity and later evaluative processing within this stimulus context.
methodsAdults with and without childhood trauma completed an emotion classification task with happy, sad, and neutral schematic faces during EEG recording. Reaction times and accuracy were analyzed as behavioral measures. ERP analyses focused on the N170 and VPP in the early window and the P300/LPP complex in the later window.
resultsThe childhood trauma group showed longer reaction times than the control group, with no significant difference in accuracy. In the early window, the childhood trauma group showed earlier N170 but later VPP peak timing. Early amplitude patterns also differed, with posterior N170 sad-happy differentiation in controls and happy-dominant VPP modulation in the childhood trauma group. In the later window, the childhood trauma group showed overall larger overall P300/LPP amplitudes and longer latencies than the control group. P300/LPP amplitude also varied by group and emotion, with a sad-over-happy pattern in the childhood trauma group and a happy-over-sad pattern in controls.
conclusionsChildhood trauma was associated with slower responding and stage-specific ERP differences during schematic emotional face processing. These differences appeared across both the early N170, VPP and later P300/LPP windows, rather than as a uniform change in responsiveness. The findings suggest altered timing and emotion-specific weighting across ERP windows, including enhanced late positive responses to sad relative to happy schematic faces in the childhood trauma group.
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.