Table of Contents

Key Terms

Survey: Pertaining to data collected from the initial survey including topic ranks, frequency ratings, intensity ratings.

Scanner: Pertaining to data collected in the fMRI scanner two weeks after the survey. Includes feeling ratings, intensity ratings, reaction time.

Event type: A statement can be one of three types: a worry statement, a rumination statement, or a neutral statement.

Frequency rating: Participant rates, on a scale of ____, how frequently they think about the current statement.

Feeling rating: Participant rates the valence of the current statement, 1 being negative, 2 being neutral, and 3 being positive.

Intensity rating: Participant rates, on a scale of 0-4 (survey) or 1-4 (scanner), how intensely they feel when thinking about the current statement.

Topic Rank: Participant ranks a set of topics (i.e school, finances, health) from 1 to 12 based on the likelihood that they would worry about the topic, 1 being the topic they are most likely to worry about.

Reaction Time: Time it takes for participant to rate a statement in the scanner, in milliseconds.

Scanner Analyses

Rating Responses

Descriptive Statistics

## 
##  Descriptive statistics by group 
## EventType: neutral
##                    vars   n    mean     sd median trimmed   mad  min  max range
## Subject               1 585 5259.72 113.85   5314 5280.69 20.76 5002 5338   336
## FeelingRate.RESP      2 573    2.22   0.54      2    2.22  0.00    1    3     2
## IntensityRate.RESP    3 579    1.26   0.55      1    1.14  0.00    1    4     3
## EventType*            4 585    1.00   0.00      1    1.00  0.00    1    1     0
##                     skew kurtosis   se
## Subject            -1.41     0.16 4.71
## FeelingRate.RESP    0.12    -0.18 0.02
## IntensityRate.RESP  2.28     5.30 0.02
## EventType*           NaN      NaN 0.00
## ------------------------------------------------------------ 
## EventType: rum
##                    vars   n    mean     sd median trimmed   mad  min  max range
## Subject               1 780 5259.72 113.82   5314 5280.88 20.76 5002 5338   336
## FeelingRate.RESP      2 757    1.30   0.56      1    1.18  0.00    1    3     2
## IntensityRate.RESP    3 771    2.34   0.91      2    2.30  1.48    1    4     3
## EventType*            4 780    1.00   0.00      1    1.00  0.00    1    1     0
##                     skew kurtosis   se
## Subject            -1.41     0.17 4.08
## FeelingRate.RESP    1.75     2.03 0.02
## IntensityRate.RESP  0.28    -0.69 0.03
## EventType*           NaN      NaN 0.00
## ------------------------------------------------------------ 
## EventType: worry
##                    vars   n    mean     sd median trimmed   mad  min  max range
## Subject               1 780 5259.72 113.82   5314 5280.88 20.76 5002 5338   336
## FeelingRate.RESP      2 765    1.15   0.42      1    1.04  0.00    1    3     2
## IntensityRate.RESP    3 771    2.68   0.90      3    2.71  1.48    1    4     3
## EventType*            4 780    1.00   0.00      1    1.00  0.00    1    1     0
##                     skew kurtosis   se
## Subject            -1.41     0.17 4.08
## FeelingRate.RESP    2.74     7.11 0.02
## IntensityRate.RESP -0.04    -0.86 0.03
## EventType*           NaN      NaN 0.00

Event Type and FeelingRate Response

Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
EventType 416.975 208.487 2 2054.235 891.852 0

Post hoc

Neutral, worry, and rumination statements were rated differently in terms of Feeling rate. (Emily change this sentence)

Event Type and IntensityRate Response

Over all 3 feeling ratings: negative, neutral, and positive

Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
EventType 45.141 45.141 1 1502.061 72.479 0

Worry Intensity Rating mean is 2.68352788586252.
Rum Intensity Rating mean is 2.34111543450065.

When measured across all worry and rumination statements, worry statements were rated significantly higher in intensity than rumination statements, on average.


Over just the negative feeling ratings

Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
EventType 20.137 20.137 1 1191.575 36.49 0

Worry Intensity Rating mean is 2.779299847793.
Rum Intensity Rating mean is 2.53940455341506.

When measured across only worry and rumination statements that were rated “negative”, worry statements were rated significantly higher in intensity than rumination statements, on average.




Reaction Time (Scanner)

Descriptive Statistics

## 
##  Descriptive statistics by group 
## EventType: neutral
##                  vars   n    mean     sd median trimmed    mad min  max range
## FeelingRate.RT      1 585 1026.41 520.61    889  971.68 394.37   0 2987  2987
## IntensityRate.RT    2 585 1030.66 518.51    972  992.07 529.29   0 2667  2667
## EventType*          3 585    1.00   0.00      1    1.00   0.00   1    1     0
##                  skew kurtosis    se
## FeelingRate.RT   0.94     0.75 21.52
## IntensityRate.RT 0.64     0.03 21.44
## EventType*        NaN      NaN  0.00
## ------------------------------------------------------------ 
## EventType: rum
##                  vars   n    mean     sd median trimmed    mad min  max range
## FeelingRate.RT      1 780 1040.94 540.08  937.0  989.95 441.07   0 2983  2983
## IntensityRate.RT    2 780 1034.14 534.22  948.5  997.63 567.84   0 2916  2916
## EventType*          3 780    1.00   0.00    1.0    1.00   0.00   1    1     0
##                  skew kurtosis    se
## FeelingRate.RT   0.89     0.88 19.34
## IntensityRate.RT 0.58    -0.24 19.13
## EventType*        NaN      NaN  0.00
## ------------------------------------------------------------ 
## EventType: worry
##                  vars   n    mean     sd median trimmed    mad min  max range
## FeelingRate.RT      1 780 1004.19 490.93    886  949.15 375.10   0 2981  2981
## IntensityRate.RT    2 780 1011.14 531.38    942  964.18 562.65   0 2932  2932
## EventType*          3 780    1.00   0.00      1    1.00   0.00   1    1     0
##                  skew kurtosis    se
## FeelingRate.RT   1.14     1.72 17.58
## IntensityRate.RT 0.74     0.23 19.03
## EventType*        NaN      NaN  0.00

Event Type and FeelingRate Reaction Time

Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
EventType 1079168 539584.2 2 2054.156 2.548 0.078

Post hoc

Reaction times for Feeling Ratings were not significantly different between Event Types (neutral, worry, and rumination).

Event Type and IntensityRate Reaction Time

Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
EventType 233814 116907 2 2104 0.491 0.612

Reaction time when rating the intensity of statements was not significantly different between Event Types. (?)

Reaction Time over duration of the task

By Trial Number

Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
TaskTrialNum 1 15014364 15014364.4 55.583 0
Residuals 4288 1158294454 270124.6 NA NA

Post hoc

By Block

Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
Block 16365477 4091369 4 4247 17.091 0

Post hoc

Reaction time is sifgnificantly different between block numbers.

Survey Analyses

Topic Rank

Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
Topicrank 36.553 36.553 1 1918.110 108.566 0.000
RNTtype 33.212 33.212 1 1922.576 98.643 0.000
Ratingtype 0.023 0.023 1 1917.774 0.067 0.795
Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
Topicrank 36.175 36.175 1 1914.117 107.903 0.000
RNTtype 12.523 12.523 1 1915.219 37.354 0.000
Ratingtype 0.075 0.075 1 1913.776 0.223 0.637
Topicrank:RNTtype 1.208 1.208 1 1914.119 3.602 0.058
Topicrank:Ratingtype 0.054 0.054 1 1913.776 0.160 0.689
RNTtype:Ratingtype 2.504 2.504 1 1913.776 7.470 0.006
Topicrank:RNTtype:Ratingtype 2.784 2.784 1 1913.776 8.303 0.004

Frequency Ratings by Topic Rank

Intensity Ratings by Topic Rank



Intensity Ratings by Number of Words Written

## Linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood . t-tests use Satterthwaite's
##   method [lmerModLmerTest]
## Formula: 
## value ~ 1 + Topicrank + RNTtype + within.subject.words + C.subject.mean.words +  
##     sex + (1 + within.subject.words | subject)
##    Data: survey
## Control: lmerControl(optimizer = "Nelder_Mead")
## 
##      AIC      BIC   logLik deviance df.resid 
##  11966.4  12029.8  -5973.2  11946.4     4199 
## 
## Scaled residuals: 
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -2.9677 -0.6968  0.0332  0.7136  3.3011 
## 
## Random effects:
##  Groups   Name                 Variance  Std.Dev. Corr 
##  subject  (Intercept)          0.4112930 0.64132       
##           within.subject.words 0.0002135 0.01461  -0.48
##  Residual                      0.9398302 0.96945       
## Number of obs: 4209, groups:  subject, 81
## 
## Fixed effects:
##                        Estimate Std. Error         df t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)           2.527e+00  1.080e-01  9.975e+01  23.406  < 2e-16 ***
## Topicrank            -3.794e-02  8.415e-03  4.031e+03  -4.509 6.69e-06 ***
## RNTtypeWorry          2.081e-01  3.028e-02  3.184e+03   6.873 7.53e-12 ***
## within.subject.words  1.240e-02  4.938e-03  2.657e+01   2.510  0.01847 *  
## C.subject.mean.words  9.025e-02  2.802e-02  7.597e+01   3.221  0.00188 ** 
## sexMale              -3.571e-01  1.473e-01  8.041e+01  -2.424  0.01758 *  
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Correlation of Fixed Effects:
##             (Intr) Tpcrnk RNTtyW wthn.. C.sb..
## Topicrank   -0.275                            
## RNTtypeWrry -0.148 -0.003                     
## wthn.sbjct. -0.120  0.034  0.043              
## C.sbjct.mn. -0.122 -0.008  0.016 -0.088       
## sexMale     -0.668 -0.002  0.000 -0.001  0.209



Cognitive risk and Symptom Measures

Correlations: WRG Survey and Time 1 Cog Risk and Symptom Measures


Survey v. Scanner Responses

Survey v. Scanner IntensityRate Responses

## 
##  Pearson's product-moment correlation
## 
## data:  fr2$Response and fr2$qualInt
## t = 13.004, df = 1539, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
##  0.2689420 0.3589472
## sample estimates:
##       cor 
## 0.3146517

Trial by trial

Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
qualInt 1 129.007 129.007 169.113 0
Residuals 1539 1174.021 0.763 NA NA