{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019720101781170483, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.809523809523809, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is neutral really neutral? Converging evidence from behavior and corticolimbic connectivity in children and adolescents.

Individuals differ in their tendency to perceive negativity in ambiguous situations or facial expressions. Prior research demonstrates that this so-called "negativity bias" is exaggerated in children; for instance, when they rate the emotional content of neutral facial expressions. However, neutral faces are frequently used as a baseline condition in pediatric emotion processing studies, as they are thought to be emotionally neutral. Here, we present data that challenge that notion. We demonstrate that children and adolescents rate neutral faces, particularly of adults, as negative, similar to ratings elicited by angry faces. In addition, we found a lack of age-related decrease in reaction time for neutral adult faces, suggesting that these stimuli remain salient across development. Demonstrating the relevance of individual differences, higher negativity bias was associated with lower self-reported reward sensitivity and increased functional connectivity of the amygdala. Together, these findings indicate that neutral faces are not perceived as emotionally neutral in children, thus discouraging their use as baseline condition in pediatric research. These data also offer a potential neurobiological substrate of the negativity bias in children. The link to corticolimbic emotion-processing circuitry and affective experience implies that exaggerations in these biases may be relevant for the development of emotional psychopathology.