Your summary claims more than the original you quoted, no?

Example:

Case 1: Subject tries piano sight-reading exercises, if they get less than 80% accuracy a loud annoying horn will blare. Then subject goes again and try to improve the score.

Care 2. Subject tries piano sight-reading exercises, and if they get less than 80% accuracy they get notified that they didn't succeed at the test. Then they go again and try to improve their score.

The article strongly implies depression will make improvement more difficult in case 1 by the amount found in the study. But it doesn't necessarily imply that (or anything strongly) for case 2.

Your summary strongly implies that depression impedes progress in both cases at the same rate as the outcome of the study.

I'm not a domain expert but I'm going to guess "having bad outcomes" is as poor a paraphrase of "overriding prepotent responses" here as "having functions" would be to characterize functional programming languages.

I don't really know what the original is claiming, thanks to how it was written. I only offered a guess at what the authors were saying.

So, you're saying that the study was narrower in scope and that the results are only applicable to specific bad/negative outcomes?