Scalable affective assessment requires generative stimuli that can be tailored to diverse populations, but two prerequisites for individualised use remain untested: whether LLM-mediated affective communication guarantees fidelity of transfer across linguistic context, and whether recipient psychopathology modulates the response to LLM-generated affective stimuli. We introduce a pipeline quantifying the fidelity of LLM-mediated affective communication and testing whether psychopathology modulates responses to LLM-generated stimuli. An English-speaking source cohort (n = 547) provided core affect ratings (valence, arousal, focus, dominance) for 18 emotion constructs. Conditioned on these ratings, GPT-4o generated 180 text and 18 image stimuli, rated by a Korean-speaking evaluation cohort (n = 91) along the same dimensions. Cross-lingual alignment was quantified as cosine similarity and benchmarked against chance, a within-cohort semantic-distinctness threshold (ε), and another same-language cohort (n = 76); associations with six psychopathology measures were tested using linear mixed-effects models. Similarities exceeded chance-level across both formats but did not reach ε, and same-language alignment exceeded cross-lingual alignment. After multivariate adjustment, sensitivity to prosocial emotions (PFQ-2) was the sole predictor of lower-magnitude and more variable responses. LLM-mediated affective communication is bounded and selectively shaped by reactivity to prosocial emotions, providing a measurable channel for individualised affective assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: