MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115761534 · doi:10.1080/17470919.2011.581539

Shyness and the first 100 ms of emotional face processing

2011· article· en· W2115761534 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle K. Jetha, Xin Zheng, Louis A. Schmidt, Sidney J. Segalowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShynessPsychologyDisgustStimulus (psychology)PerceptionFacial expressionDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyCognitive psychologyAnxietyAngerSocial psychologyNeuroscienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although shyness is presumed to be related to an increased sensitivity to detect motivationally salient social stimuli, we know little of how shyness affects the early perception of facial emotions. We demonstrate here that individual differences in normative shyness were related to brain responses to some emotional faces as early as the P1 electrocortical component, 80-130 ms after stimulus onset. High-shy individuals showed reduced P1 amplitude for fearful faces compared to neutral faces. Low-shy individuals processed happy faces faster than other emotions and showed increased P1 amplitudes for happy faces over neutral faces. Regardless of shyness level, participants showed increased amplitudes in the N170 component (130-200 ms) for all emotions over neutral conditions, particularly for the emotion of fear. This study presents the first evidence that shyness is related to early electrocortical responses to the processing of fearful faces, consistent with a fast-path amygdala sensitivity model.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations57
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial NeuroscienceSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207