MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062968469 · doi:10.2466/pms.107.3.915-922

Difficulty Identifying Feelings and Automatic Activation in the Fusiform Gyrus in Response to Facial Emotion

2008· article· en· W2062968469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mischa Eichmann, Harald Kugel, Thomas Suslow

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusiform gyrusFusiform face areaAlexithymiaPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleFacial expressionFeelingGyrusCognitive psychologyFace perceptionFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceCommunicationPerceptionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Difficulties in identifying and differentiating one's emotions are a central characteristic of alexithymia. In the present study, automatic activation of the fusiform gyrus to facial emotion was investigated as a function of alexithymia as assessed by the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. During 3 Tesla fMRI scanning, pictures of faces bearing sad, happy, and neutral expressions masked by neutral faces were presented to 22 healthy adults who also responded to the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. The fusiform gyrus was selected as the region of interest, and voxel values of this region were extracted, summarized as means, and tested among the different conditions (sad, happy, and neutral faces). Masked sad facial emotions were associated with greater bilateral activation of the fusiform gyrus than masked neutral faces. The subscale, Difficulty Identifying Feelings, was negatively correlated with the neural response of the fusiform gyrus to masked sad faces. The correlation results suggest that automatic hyporesponsiveness of the fusiform gyrus to negative emotion stimuli may reflect problems in recognizing one's emotions in everyday life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207