No, null and void's personal experience is in line with with the findings of the NIH study. This article has a bit more detail:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777356?src=rss
"Consistently, constituent-based analyses showed higher depression risk with aspartame intake (ORs between extreme quintiles: 1.36; 95% CI 1.29-1.44) and lower risk with caffeine intake (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.78-0.89)," the researchers report.
Your link is available by subscription only. This study is not listed in Pubmed, and the USA Today article seems to be discussing a conference presentation.
As I explained in post 43, this kind of study is the worst kind of “research” possible. I’ve read hundreds of these correlational studies, and my annoyance with them never decreases. Correlation is not causation, yet these studies are used to “prove” all kinds of things, or, worse, used to “prove” a pre-conceived bias.
I have no idea whether the study you cite is legitimate or not. The chances are that, like so much of research today, the findings are meaningless.
I do know, however, that if the findings in this study were legit, anyone experiencing depression from aspartame would also experience depression from eating bananas. They would get really, really depressed from consuming a piece of grilled chicken with a cup of orange juice, or tomato juice, or orange juice, or red wine, because the same chemical compounds that make up aspartame are available here in significantly higher quantities.
Don't tell that to the fixed mentality folks, though, because they've already made up their minds, and something as simple as my example results in rabid denial and incessant snarking. But they're the ones employing the scientific method and critical thinking. Sure.