Graded Affective-Neural-Behavioral Vulnerability in Trait Anxiety under Frustrative Reward Outcome: ERP Evidence.

Differences associated with trait anxiety became more visible as frustration increased across self-report, behavior and reward-related ERP measures. The study maps a laboratory response pattern and does not diagnose anxiety or test treatment.

Wan J, Zhang X, Jin Y, Wang J, Lei Y.
Biological psychology · Publication date: 2026-09-26
Added to site: 2026-09-28
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2026.109404

Electronic publication date verified in Europe PMC. This source date is separate from the site's addition date.

Modalities

ERP, EEG

Clinical focus

Trait anxiety, Reward processing, Frustration

Population

Participants grouped by trait-anxiety level; clinical diagnoses and demographic criteria were not available in the checked abstract

Sample

60 participants: 30 with high trait anxiety and 30 with low trait anxiety

Intervention / method

Modified frustrative non-reward task with graded challenge, self-report, behavioral measures and ERP indices including P3 and reward positivity

Comparator

High-trait-anxiety versus low-trait-anxiety groups across graded frustration conditions

Clinician summary

The high-trait-anxiety group reported more frustration and lower overall accuracy. Under high frustration it responded faster, and reward and loss RewP changes increased more strongly; difference RewP increased from mid to high frustration only in the high-trait-anxiety group.

How to interpret the findings

The cross-sectional task cannot establish causality, clinical diagnosis or real-world impairment. The modest grouped sample needs independent replication, and the abstract provides no effect sizes, correction details for the multiple ERP comparisons, preregistration information or longitudinal outcomes.

Equipment and disclosures

ERP recording was used during a modified frustrative non-reward task; channel count, acquisition hardware and preprocessing details were not available in the checked abstract.

The PubMed record states that the authors declared no competing interests. Funding details were not available in the checked index record.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.