Emotional Response Inhibition: A Shared Neurocognitive Deficit in Eating Disorder Symptoms and Nonsuicidal Self-Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorder (ED) symptoms often co-occur with non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). This comorbidity is consistent with evidence that trait negative urgency increases risk for both of these phenomena. We previously found that impaired late-stage negative emotional response inhibition (i.e., negative emotional action termination or NEAT) might represent a neurocognitive mechanism for heightened negative urgency among people with NSSI history. The current study evaluated whether relations between negative urgency and ED symptoms similarly reflect deficits in this neurocognitive process. A total of 105 community adults completed an assessment of ED symptoms, negative urgency, and an emotional response inhibition task. Results indicated that, contrary to predictions, negative urgency and NEAT contributed independent variance to the prediction of ED symptoms, while controlling for demographic covariates and NSSI history. Worse NEAT was also uniquely associated with restrictive eating, after accounting for negative urgency. Our findings suggest that difficulty inhibiting ongoing motor responses triggered by negative emotional reactions (i.e., NEAT) may be a shared neurocognitive characteristic of ED symptoms and NSSI. However, negative urgency and NEAT dysfunction capture separate variance in the prediction of ED-related cognitions and behaviors, distinct from the pattern of results we previously observed in NSSI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".