ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
Daily Negative Affect and Reaction Time Inconsistency in Emerging Adults: Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Anxiety and mood disorders, characterized by elevated negative affect (NA) and cognitive impairments, are highly prevalent among college students. Within-person (WP) NA variability, which captures moment-to-moment fluctuations in NA, provides unique insights into emotional processes that are not reflected in mean NA levels. Cognitive variability, particularly reaction time (RT) inconsistency, is increasingly recognized as a sensitive marker of cognitive health and functional integrity. Although prior research links NA to cognitive variability, the short-term dynamics of these associations in naturalistic settings remain understudied. College students provide an ideal population for examining these dynamics using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Objective: This study investigated the association between WP NA and RT inconsistency, hypothesizing that higher WP fluctuations in NA would predict increased RT inconsistency. We also examined the moderating roles of practice effects and covariates, including neuroticism, insomnia, and sex. Methods: Using EMA, 99 university students completed morning and evening assessments over 14 days, including a cognitive task measuring RT inconsistency (standard deviation in trial-level RT) and self-reported NA. Multilevel modeling was used to assess WP fluctuations in NA and their impact on RT inconsistency, accounting for time (session number), between-person differences in NA, and covariates such as sleep problems, neuroticism, age, sex, and use of a touch device. Results: WP fluctuations in NA significantly predicted increased RT inconsistency (exp(β)=1.022, 95% CI 1.008-1.037; P=.007), supporting the hypothesis that NA variability disrupts cognitive performance. Male students exhibited lower RT inconsistency than female students, with a small effect size (exp(β)=0.824, 95% CI 0.694-0.977; P=.049). Finally, EMA sessions were inversely associated with RT inconsistency, with a stronger effect up to session 3 (exp(β)=0.930, 95% CI 0.879-0.985; P=.03) than after session 3 (exp(β)=0.986, 95% CI=0.979-0.992; P<.001), indicating practice effects. Conclusions: Momentary fluctuations in NA influence cognitive variability, particularly in the early stages of repeated cognitive tasks, underscoring the role of emotional processes in cognitive performance. Practice effects and individual differences, such as sex and insomnia, influence these associations. These findings highlight the use of EMA for understanding cognitive-affective processes and suggest potential intervention targets, such as addressing NA, to improve cognitive functioning in emotionally vulnerable populations like college students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.