Emotional stimulation processing characteristics in depression: Meta-analysis of eye tracking findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the attentional bias in patients with depression toward emotional stimuli and to explore eye movement indicators and potential regulatory variables that can distinguish such patients from healthy individuals. Methods: Case-control studies regarding eye-tracking in major depressive disorder published in PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP databases from database initiation until March 12, 2022 were included in the present meta-analysis. Two researchers independently screened the literature and performed data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.RevMan 5.4 software was used for Meta-analysis. Results: = 693). We found that (1) fixation duration was significantly lower for positive emotional stimuli in the depression group than that in the healthy group; however, for negative stimuli, the fixation duration was significantly more in the depression group than in the healthy group. No significant difference was observed in terms of neutral emotional stimuli between groups. (2) Patients with depression exhibited a significantly lower fixation count for positive emotional stimuli than healthy individuals, whereas the fixation count for negative emotional stimuli was significantly higher in the depression group than in the healthy group. No significant difference was found for neutral emotional stimuli between groups. (3) No significant difference was detected in terms of the first fixation duration of the positive, negative, and neutral emotional stimuli between groups. (4) subgroup analysis indicated that age effected fixation duration for positive emotional stimuli. In addition, age and the type of negative emotional picture (sad, dysphoric, threat, anger) effected fixation duration for negative emotional stimuli. Conclusion: Our research supports that patients with depression exhibit a negative attention bias toward emotional stimuli, and the fixation duration and fixation counts may be used as auxiliary objective indicators for depression screening.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".