Table 1.

Results Summary. Main findings listed alongside relevant Results source.

Finding	Source
A composite occluded minus whole bias score, combining trust and threat ratings to the same face is valid: faces with an occluded-approach bias for trust ratings tended to have an occluded-avoid bias for threat ratings and vice versa.	Figure 2a
Patients’ composite occluded minus whole bias scores tend to be more positive (occluded-approach bias) than controls’ scores for each face.	Figure 2b–d
Bootstrap analysis comparing 3 randomly sampled controls’ mean composite occluded bias score to the patients’ actual mean score shows a stronger occluded-approach tendency in the patients for all faces, especially for faces controls tended to avoid in the occluded condition.	Figure 3
Parametric visualization of the bias shown in Figure 3. To test whether patients’ bias results from greater difficulty in rating occluded faces, we generated synthetic patient bias scores derived from actual whole-face ratings and random occluded-face ratings, which did not explain their bias.	Figure 4
Bootstrap comparison of controls’ and patients’ general “positivity” (trust minus threat) bias for whole and occluded faces separately shows (1) that all participants had a bias to approach occluded faces more than whole faces, but (2) also confirms this bias was greatly enhanced in the patients.	Figure 5
Full reporting of patients’ individual scores and 95% CI of mean patient scores for each judgment X stimulus type.	Table 2