ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Multimodal data processing for affective perception in AI-supported developmental bibliotherapy: a mixed-methods feasibility study in university libraries.
Article in Frontiers in 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
Introduction: Multimodal data processing is increasingly important for understanding human affective experience in naturalistic settings. In this study, "multimodal" refers to the integration of heterogeneous human-centered evidence streams rather than synchronized perceptual or physiological sensing. We evaluated a low-threshold university-library support model integrating developmental bibliotherapy salons with AI chatbot-supported emotional expression. Methods: A convergent mixed-methods feasibility and acceptability design was conducted at a Chinese university. Of 180 baseline respondents, 45 voluntarily registered for a three-week intervention and 38 completed all sessions and post-intervention assessments; 68 non-participating students with complete baseline and follow-up assessments served as a descriptive comparison group. Evidence sources included psychological self-report data, participation records, AI-use feedback, participant evaluations, and semi-structured interviews with nine intervention participants. Quantitative indicators assessed recruitment, retention, acceptability, and exploratory SCL-90 change, while thematic analysis examined participants' affective experiences and perceived mechanisms. Results: All available intervention places were filled within two days, retention reached 84.4%, and 94.7% of completers reported moderate or considerable benefit. The intervention-group mean SCL-90 change was -0.12 points, with an approximate 95% confidence interval of [-0.23, -0.01]. Because allocation was voluntary and non-randomized, no causal group-by-time intervention effect is claimed. Qualitative findings suggested that bibliotherapy salons supported interpersonal resonance, cognitive reframing, and shared reflection, whereas the AI chatbot provided a private and non-judgmental channel for emotional disclosure. Discussion: AI-supported developmental bibliotherapy appears feasible and acceptable as a low-threshold university-library wellbeing service. The findings support feasibility, acceptability, and perceived mechanisms only; they do not establish treatment efficacy, clinical effectiveness, or a neuroscience mechanism. More broadly, the study illustrates how heterogeneous psychological, behavioral, and experiential evidence can be integrated in a naturalistic educational setting.
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.