Associations Between Repetitive Negative Thinking and Habituation of Defensive Responding Within and Between Sessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive negative thinking (RNT) is a transdiagnostic risk factor for internalizing psychopathology, and theoretical models suggest that RNT may maintain symptoms by interfering with psychophysiological habituation. The present study therefore examined associations between RNT and habituation within and between study sessions. Community members (N=86) completed a habituation task involving exposure to acoustic probes at up to five sessions spaced seven days apart on average. Eyeblink startle response was measured using the electromyography startle magnitude. Self-reported anxiety was assessed before and after the habituation task at each session. Multilevel growth curve modeling indicated that RNT was associated with a higher ‘floor’ (i.e., asymptote) of startle responding as evidenced by reduced within-session startle habituation at later sessions. Results suggest that RNT may disrupt startle habituation and are consistent with theoretical models proposing that RNT sustains physiological activation to support avoidance of negative emotional contrasts or perceived future threats.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".