Speech deepfake detection (SDD) systems achieve strong performance on conventional benchmarks; however, existing datasets provide limited coverage of emotionally expressive and recent large audio-language model (LALM)-based attacks. Existing emotional spoofing datasets are also limited in scale and attack diversity, typically covering only voice conversion (VC) or text-to-speech (TTS) attacks. We introduce AffectDF, the most comprehensive benchmark for emotionally expressive speech deepfakes, spanning TTS, VC, emotional VC, and LALM-based spoofing attacks across both acted and spontaneous emotional speech. AffectDF contains approximately 260 hours of speech generated using 21 spoofing attacks across five emotional states. We benchmark state-of-the-art SDD systems under conventional and emotional spoofing conditions. Our experiments reveal severe robustness degradation when models trained on conventional benchmarks are evaluated on AffectDF, with several systems approaching near-random performance. Surprisingly, even large-scale emotional training does not consistently improve cross-domain robustness, indicating that current SDD systems fail to learn generalized spoof representations under emotional and prosodic variability. Robustness further varies substantially across emotional states, attack families, and acted vs spontaneous emotional speech conditions. These findings expose fundamental limitations of current SDD systems and establish AffectDF as a benchmark for developing more robust spoof detection models.

Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) provides auditable psycholinguistic categories that are widely used to interpret depression-related language, but its incremental predictive role in modern multimodal systems remains unclear. We evaluate LIWC across two English and three Chinese depression-related corpora under matched participant-level cross-validation. We ask whether LIWC improves classification and what any performance change reflects. Intact LIWC is compared with three fold-local substitutes: a PCA-rotated version that removes direct access to named category coordinates, a participant-shuffled version that preserves real LIWC profiles while breaking participant alignment, and a random-marginal version that preserves feature-wise distributions. Across multiple fixed representation contexts, the results provide limited evidence for stable LIWC gains under frozen, participant-level early fusion. None of the prespecified dataset-blocked contrasts survives multiple-comparison correction. A separate SBERT calibration produces larger observed intact-versus-shuffled and intact-versus-random separations, indicating that larger participant-aligned signals can produce correspondingly larger separations under the same procedure, while not resolving the five-corpus power limitation. LIWC remains useful as an auditable, corpus-conditioned interpretive layer. These conclusions should not be generalized to fine-tuned, sequence-aware, or end-to-end architectures.