The late positive potential (LPP): A neural marker of internalizing problems in early childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One potentially relevant neurophysiological marker of internalizing problems (anxiety/depressive symptoms) is the late positive potential (LPP), as it is related to processing of emotional stimuli. For the first time, to our knowledge, we investigated the value of the LPP as a neurophysiological marker for internalizing problems and specific anxiety and depressive symptoms, at preschool age. METHOD: At age 4 years, children (N = 84) passively viewed a series of neutral, pleasant, and unpleasant pictures selected from the International Affective Pictures System. Affective picture processing was measured via the LPP (EEG recorded) and mothers reported on child behavior via the Child Behavior Checklist 1 ½ - 5 (internalizing, DSM-anxiety, DSM-affective/depression subscales). Difference scores between the neutral and affective pictures (i.e., neutral-pleasant and neutral-unpleasant) were computed for posterior, central and anterior brain locations for early (300-700 ms), middle (700-1200 ms) and late (1200-2000 ms) time windows. RESULTS: Greater LPP difference scores for pleasant images in the anterior recording site, in the middle time window, were associated with greater internalizing behaviors. Greater DSM-anxiety symptoms were associated with greater LPP difference scores for unpleasant and pleasant images. After correcting for multiple testing, only the association between greater DSM-affective/depression symptoms and greater LPP difference scores for unpleasant images in the anterior recording site (early time window) remained significant. DISCUSSION: Our study has identified a potential neural marker of preschool internalizing problems. Children with larger LPPs to unpleasant images may be at greater risk of internalizing problems, potentially due to an increased emotional reactivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".