Respiratory sinus arrhythmia during worry forecasts stress-related increases in psychological distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) has been conceptualized as an index of emotion regulation abilities. Although resting RSA has been associated with both concurrent and prospective affective responses to stress, the impact of RSA reactivity on emotional responses to stress is inconsistent across studies. The type of emotional stimuli used to elicit these phasic RSA responses may influence the adaptive value of RSA reactivity. We propose that RSA reactivity to a personally relevant worry-based stressor might forecast future affective responses to stress. To evaluate whether resting RSA and RSA reactivity to worry inductions predict stress-related increases in psychological distress, an academic stress model was used to prospectively examine changes in psychological distress from the well-defined low- and high-stress periods. During the low-stress period, 76 participants completed self-report mood measures and had their RSA assessed during a resting baseline, free worry period and worry catastrophizing interview. Participants completed another mood assessment during the high-stress period. Results indicated that baseline psychological distress predicted larger decreases in RSA during the worry inductions. Lower resting RSA and greater RSA suppression to the worry inductions at baseline prospectively predicted larger increases in psychological distress from the low- to high-stress period, even after accounting for the impact of baseline distress on RSA. These results provide further evidence that RSA may represent a unique index of emotion regulation abilities in times of stress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".