MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2566724153 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw479

Wisdom and heart rate

2016· article· en· W2566724153 sur OpenAlexaff
Igor Grossmann

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Heart Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCardiologyHeart rateInternal medicineBlood pressure

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Although wisdom can be difficult to define, people generally recognize it when they encounter it ‘Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.’ Aristotle Most psychologists agree wisdom involves an integration of knowledge, experience and deep understanding that incorporates tolerance for the uncertainties of life as well as its ups and downs. That said, researchers now believe wisdom is a matter of both heart and mind, touting that fluctuations in our heartbeats may, in fact, affect our wisdom. According to Igor Grossmann, Professor of Psychology at University of Waterloo, Ontario and colleagues, their study breaks new ground in wisdom research by identifying conditions under which psychophysiology impacts wise judgment. Human heart rate fluctuates even during steady-state conditions, such as sitting. This study is the first to show that the variability of heart rate during low physical activity is related to less biased, wiser judgment. In this study, researchers assessed behavioural processes reflecting wisdom-related judgment in two ways. First, they asked participants to reason about societal issues and examined their narratives for multiple aspects of wisdom-related reasoning strategies. Second, researchers asked participants to reflect on desirable/undesirable acts committed by another person and tested whether their judgments of those acts relied on biased dispositional explanations or more balanced situation-sensitive explanations. Throughout the study, researchers measured the resting electrophysiological signature of the heart—heart rate variability (HRV)—obtaining a range of time- and frequency-domain HRV indicators. To examine how self-distancing moderates the relationship between wisdom-related judgment and HRV, participants were randomly assigned to adopt a self-distanced as compared to the self-immersed perspective when reflecting on the social issue. As hypothesized, in the self-distanced condition, each HRV indicator was positively related to prevalence of wisdom-related reasoning (e.g. recognition of limits of one's knowledge, recognition that the world is in flux/change, consideration of others' opinions and search for an integration of these opinions) and to balanced vs. biased attributions (recognition of situational and dispositional factors vs. focus on dispositional factors alone). In contrast, there was limited evidence of the relationship between these variables in the self-immersed condition. The researchers found people with more varied heart rates were able to reason in a wiser, less biased fashion about societal problems when they were instructed to reflect on a social issue from a third-person perspective. But, when the study participants were instructed to reason about the issue from a first-person perspective, no relationship between heart rate and wisdom-related reasoning (and a much weaker relationship between HRV and balanced attributions) emerged. According to Grossmann, it has been known that people with greater variation in their heart rates show superior performance in the brain's executive functioning such as working memory. However, that does not necessarily mean these people are wiser; in fact, some people may use their cognitive skills to make unwise decisions. To channel their cognitive abilities for wiser judgment, people with greater HRV first need to overcome their egocentric viewpoints. Indeed, Grossmann’s other research has shown strategies that can effectively attenuate such egocentric viewpoints and boost wise judgment. The present study opens the door for further exploration of wise judgment at the intersection of physiological and cognitive research. Cardio Pulse contact: Andros Tofield, Managing Editor. Email: docandros@bluewin.ch

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,068
Tête enseignante GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean Heart JournalMême sujetNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionTravaux en français237 207