Analyzing the Aesthetic Impressions of Alexithymic Japanese Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the association between alexithymic tendencies as measured by the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the characteristics of aesthetic impressions for words and drawings. Impressions were measured using the semantic differential technique in three groups of Japanese students (High scores n = 31, Moderate scores n = 40, and a Control group n = 182) who were presented only words (Word condition), only drawings (Drawing condition), or pairs comprising one word plus one drawing that represented the same emotional categories (Drawing/Word condition). In a factor analysis on the data from participants, three factors (Evaluation, Activity, and Potency) were extracted. Based on the factor scores, the distances among the three conditions were calculated for each of the groups. For Potency, significant group differences were found between the Drawing/Word and other conditions. In the High-scoring alexithymia group, in particular, the Potency impressions based on tactile sensation, e.g., soft-hard, blunt-sharp, were amplified regardless of stimulus condition. These results are discussed in the context of somatosensory amplification associated with alexithymia and the difficulty of distinguishing between emotion and somatic sensations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".