MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410403153 · doi:10.1037/emo0001538

Peripheral information’s effect on emotional intensity depends on depression level.

2025· article· en· W4410403153 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tamar Amishav, Nilly Mor

Bibliographic record

VenueEmotion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli FoundationJoseph and Harvey Meyerhoff Family Charitable Funds
KeywordsPsychologyDepression (economics)PeripheralIntensity (physics)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineOpticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined the effect of peripheral information on emotional responses and depression-related differences in this effect. In two experiments, undergraduate students, representing a subclinical sample with varying levels of depression, rated their emotional responses to neutral and negative target pictures. The target pictures were presented alone or with negative and neutral peripheral pictures (Study 1), or with negative and positive pictures (Study 2). As predicted, across studies, depressive symptoms were associated with more negative emotional responses to neutral pictures when these were presented in the context of peripheral negative pictures as compared to neutral or positive peripheral pictures. Contrary to predictions, positive peripheral pictures did not attenuate responses to negative target pictures, and depression did not moderate the effect of positive information on emotional responses. These results highlight the potential impact of contextual negative peripheral information on the emotional responses of individuals with depressive symptoms and suggest avenues for exploring interventions aimed at modifying negative affective responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmotionSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207