Back

Emotional Modulation of Face Working Memory Precision in Specific Learning Disorders: Valence Flattening and Mnemonic Distortions

Makhsous, M.; Honar, M.; Akbari, S.; Rezayat, E.

2026-09-18 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.09.13.751264 bioRxiv
Show abstract

This study examined whether emotional valence modulates face working memory precision in adolescents with specific learning disorders (SLD) and whether mnemonic distortions differ across subtypes. Fifty-four adolescents with SLD (dyslexia: n = 19; dysgraphia: n = 18; dyscalculia: n = 17) and 42 typically developing peers completed a morphed delayed reproduction task using sad, neutral, and happy faces. Using a von Mises + uniform mixture model, we decomposed recall errors into precision, systematic bias, and guessing. The SLD group made significantly larger errors (r = 8722;0.61) and responded more slowly (r = -0.33). Mixture modeling showed that deficits arose from reduced precision ({kappa}: TD M = 8.72 vs. SLD M = 4.15; r = 0.54) and stronger systematic bias toward neutrality (: TD M = -0.66 vs. SLD M = -4.15; r = 0.34), with no differences in random guessing. Valence flattening was consistently larger in SLD. Among subtypes, dyscalculia showed the greatest working memory impairment, yet all three exhibited the same valence flattening pattern. Thus, emotional faces disrupt face working memory in SLD through reduced precision and systematic affective distortion. The bias parameter from mixture modeling may offer a clinically useful metric for subtype-sensitive assessment.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
npj Science of Learning
○ 19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Developmental Science
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Psychological Science
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Neuropsychologia
○ 85 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
7
Psychological Medicine
◐ 88 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
8
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
○ 71 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.3%
9
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.2%
10
Frontiers in Psychology
○ 56 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
11
Autism Research
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
12
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
○ 96 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
13
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Cortex
○ 119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
16
Cerebral Cortex
◐ 396 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Psychophysiology
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
18
European Journal of Neuroscience
○ 189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
Cognition
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
20
Translational Psychiatry
○ 260 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
22
Behavioural Brain Research
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
● 13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
24
The Cerebellum
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
25
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
○ 40 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
26
NeuroImage: Clinical
○ 144 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Frontiers in Psychiatry
○ 87 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
28
Biological Psychology
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
29
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 41%
0.9%
30
Pediatric Neurology
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.