Event‐related Potentials Elicited to Performance Feedback in High‐Shy and Low‐Shy Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shyness has been associated with hyper‐responsivity to both social feedback and monetary reward. Electrophysiological paradigms investigating sensitivity to social feedback frequently use emotional face stimuli as their main measure. However, some behavioural evidence suggests that shy individuals show aberrant responses to non‐social rewards as well. Here, we investigate the neurophysiological correlates of adolescent shyness in a group of 12–14 year olds as they performed a simple reaction time task with embedded rewards and losses. High‐shy adolescents had more positive late P2/early N2 responses to cues signalling the potential to win or lose money than did low‐shy adolescents. Regardless of feedback type (e.g. win or loss), high‐shy adolescents showed more positive frontal P2 and late FRN amplitudes than did low‐shy adolescents. This suggests that high‐shy adolescents are hyper‐attentive to both environmental cues about forthcoming behavioural requirements and feedback from the environment about their behaviour. P2 results were not attributable to anxiety levels, whereas the FRN effect did not remain once anxiety was controlled for. Anxiety has sometimes been associated with amplitudes of similar ERP components and is often correlated with shyness. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".