Vocal affect recognition and psychopathy: Converging findings across traditional and cluster analytic approaches to assessing the construct.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits in emotion processing have been widely reported to be central to psychopathy. However, few prior studies have examined vocal affect recognition in psychopaths, and these studies suffer from significant methodological limitations. Moreover, prior studies have yielded conflicting findings regarding the specificity of psychopaths' affect recognition deficits. This study examined vocal affect recognition in 107 male inmates under conditions requiring isolated prosodic vs. semantic analysis of affective cues and compared subgroups of offenders identified via cluster analysis on vocal affect recognition. Psychopaths demonstrated deficits in vocal affect recognition under conditions requiring use of semantic cues and conditions requiring use of prosodic cues. Moreover, both primary and secondary psychopaths exhibited relatively similar emotional deficits in the semantic analysis condition compared to nonpsychopathic control participants. This study demonstrates that psychopaths' vocal affect recognition deficits are not due to methodological limitations of previous studies and provides preliminary evidence that primary and secondary psychopaths exhibit generally similar deficits in vocal affect recognition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".