MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gamma band activity and its synchronization reflect the dysfunctional emotional processing in alexithymic persons

2006· article· en· W2063198360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Atsushi Matsumoto, Yoko Ichikawa, Noriaki Kanayama, Hideki Ohira, Tetsuya Iidaka

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyDysfunctional familyToronto Alexithymia ScaleElectroencephalographyPhase synchronizationFeelingDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyPhase (matter)NeuroscienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we investigated the gamma band response and its phase synchrony between electrodes in alexithymia, which is characterized by a disability in identifying and describing feelings. Individuals with high and low alexithymia scores were selected according to the scores on the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. EEG was recorded from alexithymic and nonalexithymic persons viewing emotionally negative or neutral stimuli. Nonalexithymic persons exhibited increased gamma band power and phase synchronization at the 400-450-ms time window when processing emotionally negative stimuli. Neither enhanced gamma band power nor phase synchronization was observed in alexithymic persons in the negative emotion condition. These results suggest that gamma band activity reflects emotional processing, and alexithymic persons may have a deficit in communication between brain regions or in the utilization of memory or emotional information during the processing of emotional stimuli.

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
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

Citations63
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207