Neuropsychological correlates of organic alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits in emotional recognition and perception following traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been associated with alexithymia (Henry et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2001). This study examined the prevalence of alexithymia in a TBI population, and its relationship to injury severity, neuropsychological ability and affective disorder. A total of 121 patients completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20), a measure that addresses 3 distinct characteristics of the alexithymia concept; difficulty identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings, and externally oriented thinking. Patients also completed a neuropsychological assessment and measures of depression and anxiety. Results confirm a high prevalence of alexithymia after TBI, relative to the general population and an orthopedic control group. There was no relationship between injury severity and the presence of alexithymia. A negative relationship was found between alexithymia and verbal and sequencing abilities, but there was no relationship with executive dysfunction or any other cognitive domain. Moderate correlations were obtained between alexithymia and affective disorder; regression analyses indicated that alexithymia, depression, and anxiety should be considered distinct, but overlapping constructs. The results of this study suggest that increased neuropsychological attention should be directed towards emotional change after head injury and its relationship with cognition and psychosocial outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".