Are Orchids Left and Dandelions Right? Frontal Brain Activation Asymmetry and Its Sensitivity to Developmental Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To clarify long-standing conceptual and empirical inconsistencies in models describing the relation between frontal brain asymmetry and emotion, we tested a theory of biological sensitivity to context. We examined whether asymmetry of alpha activation in frontal brain regions, as measured by resting electroencephalography, is sensitive to early developmental contexts. Specifically, we investigated whether frontal asymmetry moderates the association between birth weight and adult outcomes. Adults with left frontal asymmetry (LFA) who were born at extremely low birth weight exhibited high levels of attention problems and withdrawn behaviors in their 30s, whereas normal-birth-weight adults with LFA had low levels of these problem behaviors. Adults with right frontal asymmetry (RFA) displayed a relatively moderate amount of problem behavior regardless of birth weight. Our findings suggest that LFA is associated with sensitivity to developmental context and may help explain why LFA is associated with both positive and negative outcomes, whereas RFA seems to be associated with a more canalized process in some contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".