ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Decision dynamics of negative bias in subclinical depression during ambiguous facial emotion perception.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individuals with depressive tendencies may categorize ambiguous facial expressions toward negative rather than happy endpoints, but the associated decision-process components remained unclear. The study examined whether the categorization shift was associated with differences in perceptual criterion, discrimination sensitivity, response dynamics, or diffusion-model parameters. Fifty-nine participants, comprising a depressive tendency group and a comparison group, categorized morphed Sad-Happy and Angry-Happy expressions presented in a 750-ms face/mask sequence or a 1500-ms face/no-mask sequence. Psychometric functions, area-under-the-curve (AUC) analyses, quadratic mixed-effects models of response time, and a hierarchical drift-diffusion model were applied. Across conditions, the depressive tendency group showed lower points of subjective equality than the comparison group, indicating a relative shift in the categorization boundary toward the negative versus happy endpoint, without a corresponding group difference in discrimination sensitivity. AUC analyses similarly indicated higher negative-response probabilities in the depressive tendency group, particularly within the low-negativity portion of the continuum. Condition-specific patterns were observed, but direct tests did not support a larger Sad-Happy group difference in the 1500-ms than in the 750-ms presentation sequence. In the focal Sad-Happy 1500-ms face/no-mask sequence, the selected drift-diffusion model indicated a group-related drift-criterion shift toward the Sad boundary and modestly longer non-decision time in the depressive tendency group, whereas starting-point bias and boundary separation did not differ between groups. These findings are consistent with a relative categorization shift toward negative versus Happy facial-expression endpoints among participants with depressive tendencies. The diffusion-model results provided a model-dependent account of the focal choice-response-time pattern under the present presentation-sequence structure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42897430What 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.