Emotional Response to Humour Perception and Gelotophobia Among Healthy Individuals and Patients with Schizophrenia and Depression, with Signs of a High Clinical Risk of Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Investigating early changes in the emotional sphere within the schizophrenia course is a perspective direction in clinical psychology and psychiatry. Intactness of positive emotions, in particular, humour perception, may be a very important resource for patients. At the same time, humour perception is very sensitive to pathological conditions, such as the fear of being laughed at, known as gelotophobia. Those with gelotophobia perceive laughter as dangerous, rather than pleasant, and they can hardly distinguish between teasing and ridicule. Gelotophobia was confirmed to be expressed among people with mental disorders. Nonetheless, knowledge relating to the fear of being laughed at, was mostly generated among the non-clinical samples. Objectives: Thus, the aim of the study was to provide more clinical data on gelotophobia manifestations associated with schizophrenia spectrum disorders; the emotional response and facial expression of patients with gelotophobia were studied, in particular, regarding their perception of humour, including during the early stages of disorders, by comparison with healthy individuals. Methods: n=30 controls and n=32 patients with schizophrenia and with depression with signs of a high clinical risk of psychosis took part. Two short videos, comic and neutral, were shown to the participants, while videotaping their facial expression, followed each by a self-reported measure of emotional responses. Participants also completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the PhoPhiKat30 and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Results: Gelotophobia was significantly higher within the clinical group. It correlated with a lower frequency of grins among the patients during the comic video, while this was not the case in the control group. Gelotophobia was related to state and trait anxiety in both groups, but only in the clinical group did state anxiety increase after watching the comic video. Gelotophobia correlated with alexithymia and was twice higher among the patients compared to the controls. Conclusion: Thus, gelotophobia has not only quantitative, but also qualitative specifics in patients with schizophrenia, and those with depression with signs of a clinically high risk of psychosis, compared to healthy controls.
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 | 0.000 | 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".