Alexithymia and script‐driven emotional imagery in healthy female subjects: no support for deficiencies in imagination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bausch, S., Stingl, M., Hartmann, L.C., Leibing, E., Leichsenring, F., Kruse, J., Stark, R. & Leweke, F. (2011). Alexithymia and script‐driven emotional imagery in healthy female subjects: no support for deficiencies in imagination. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 52, 179–184. Alexithymia is associated with a limited access to inner emotional processes. Furthermore, alexithymia is assumed to be characterized by a limited ability to use imagination. To evaluate the frequently proposed thesis of a reduced imagination ability in alexithymic persons, 25 high and 24 low alexithymic women self‐rated their imagination ability. Furthermore, the electrodermal activity (EDA) during script‐driven emotional imagination was determined and valence, arousal, and vividness of the respective imaginations were rated. Our results indicate no significant differences between high and low alexithymic women in the self‐rated imagination ability, the EDA during imagination and the ratings of valence, arousal and vividness. The study provides evidence that healthy high alexithymic women are capable of differentiated emotional imagination.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".