Effects of self-esteem on electrophysiological correlates of easy and difficult math
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study investigated the effects of easy versus difficult math on event-related potentials as a function of self-esteem in 28 undergraduate students. First, it was found that participants responded much more rapidly to an easy task. Second, the amplitude of P2 (150-300 ms) was more positive amplified in low self-esteem participants when compared to high self-esteem participants. Third, the difficult task elicited a greater N2 (300-450 ms) component than the easy task, but only in the low self-esteem participants. Finally, the easy task elicited a greater late positive component (LPC: 450-600 ms) compared with the difficult task and the difficult task elicited a greater LPC (900-1200 ms) components compared with the easy task separately, which were consistent with behavioral reaction times. We speculate that the difficult math might have induced more negative emotions in subjects with low self-esteem, and that low self-esteem individuals might be more susceptible to interpret the difficult task as threatening.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".