The Psychophysiological Correlates of Emotion Processing in Dysphoria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most recent extension of the cognitive vulnerability model of depression suggests that people with mild symptoms of depression (i.e. dysphoria) will show cognitive biases primarily at early information-processing stages, while people with severe symptoms of depression (i.e. clinical depression) will show cognitive biases at late information-processing stages. To date, however, few studies have empirically explored early cognitive biases in dysphoric samples. Here, I manipulated task-relevance to functionally dissociate implicit and explicit emotional processing and used scalp electroencephalograms (EEG) to look at information-processing stages in dysphoric participants. High-density EEG was recorded during the traditional task used to study cognitive biases, the emotional Stroop task (experiment 1), and an emotional word categorization task (experiment 2). Then, in my analyses, unlike previous studies, I focused particularly on early (< 300 ms) frontal ERP effects that differentiated a group with dysphoria from a comparison group with few depression symptoms. I found that early ERP components over frontal scalp were significantly amplified in the dysphoric group, while common measures of late stage processing, such as the emotion-related late posterior positivity (LPP) and reaction time, did not differentiate groups, regardless of task. Next, to show that these effects could be replicated with non-word stimuli, I used emotional faces. Emotional faces are commonly used in ERP studies of attention and emotion, and are the most common stimuli used in neuroimaging studies of depression. As such, by using LORETA source analyses, I was able to tie my ERP findings into a wider literature. This work therefore lends support to the recent extension of the cognitive vulnerability model of depression, and contextualizes the previous cognitive bias results in the wider attention, emotion and depression literatures. This dissertation concludes with a suggestion that future studies carefully differentiate between-group and within-group effects, use different paradigms to dissociate “fast” vs. “slow” effects, and address the usefulness of early biases to predict the onset of depression through longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".