Interhemispheric Transfer Deficit in Alexithymia: A Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A deficit in interhemispheric transfer was hypothesized in alexithymia more than 30 years ago, following the observation that split-brain patients manifest certain alexithymic characteristics. However, direct evidence of interhemispheric transfer deficit has never been provided. This study investigated the hypothesis of a transcallosal interhemispheric transfer deficit in alexithymia by means of paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. METHODS: A random sample of 300 students was screened for alexithymia using the Italian version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Eight right-handed males and eight females with high alexithymic scores and an age- and gender-matched group with low alexithymic scores were selected. A first (conditioning) magnetic stimulus was delivered to one motor cortex followed by a second (test) stimulus to the opposite hemisphere at different interstimulus intervals for both motor cortices. Motor evoked responses were recorded from the abductor digit minimi muscles. RESULTS: High alexithymic subjects showed reduced transcallosal inhibition as compared to low alexithymic subjects at interstimulus intervals of 10, 12 and 14 ms in the left-to-right and right-to-left interhemispheric transfer directions. CONCLUSIONS: Results point to functional differences in transcallosal interactions in high alexithymic as compared to low alexithymic subjects, supporting the hypothesis of an interhemispheric transfer deficit in alexithymia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".