ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Inhibitory control and stress biomarkers in response to social media stimuli: a Go/No-Go study using heart rate variability, alpha-amylase and oxytocin.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Problematic social media use is increasingly recognized as a heterogeneous phenomenon; yet the cognitive and psychophysiological mechanisms underlying distinct user profiles remain poorly understood. This study examines the relationship between cognitive control, stress regulation, and the psychophysiological response to social media stimuli using a multidimensional approach. Using a three-phase protocol (baseline, task, and recovery), inhibitory control was assessed alongside objective biomarkers-heart rate variability (SDNN), salivary alpha-amylase (sAA), and salivary oxytocin-across three distinct psychophysiological profiles. The functional profile (FP) showed the highest cognitive performance (M = 76.75, SD = 2.61), a significant within-profile post-task SDNN increase (p = .003), and a progressive decrease in salivary sAA from baseline to the recovery phase (p = .001). The compulsive use profile (CUP) exhibited intermediate performance (M = 73.44) with a descriptive pattern of sympathetic reactivity during exposure and apparent subsequent autonomic recovery (p = .033, not surviving Bonferroni correction); this pattern is considered exploratory and should be interpreted with caution. The distress-associated profile (DAP) showed significantly more omissions both in the general task (H (2) = 6.47, p = .039) and specifically in response to social media stimuli (H (2) = 6.36, p = .042), as well as significantly fewer correct rejections to social media stimuli (H (2) = 6.36, p = .042), compared to the functional profile (DAP vs. FP: U = 69.00, Z = -2.55, p = .011). No significant between-group differences were found in false alarms or reaction time to social media stimuli. Taken together, these preliminary findings suggest that problematic social media use may not be homogeneous: while some users maintain recovery mechanisms, others show patterns suggestive of heightened reactivity and reduced biological flexibility, suggesting that, if replicated in larger and more controlled samples, these findings may inform the development of profile-differentiated intervention approaches.
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.