MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Event-related potentials reveal the effects of altering personal identity

2002· article· en· W1965531226 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Girodo, Trevor Deck, Kenneth B. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)PsychologySentencePersonal identityEvent-related potentialWord (group theory)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsCognitionNeuroscienceSelf-concept

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjects were presented with terminal words that identified a sentence to reflect their true selves or another irrelevant individual. Subjects were asked to push one button if the statement reflected their true identity and another if it did not. The ERP to the terminal word consisted of a double-peaked positivity. Both the initial P300 (peaking between 300-350 ms) and a later P550 (peaking between 550 and 575 ms) were significantly larger to words that reflected the subject's true identity. When subjects were asked to take on a new identity, the P300 became larger to new, false words but the later P550 was large to both the false and the true words. The P550 to true identity words became smaller over a period of 3 days as subjects rehearsed their new roles. However, the P550 remained large to the false identity words although it was now attenuated relative to the true identity words. The late positivities may reflect a complex decisional process involving at least two stages. The initial stage might the initial yes-no decision. The later positivity may reflect the personal relevance of the terminal word. In this case, one's own true identity only begins to lose its relevance after time, and enacting the false identity then increases the positivity to this new identity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207