Interoceptive–reflective regions differentiate alexithymia traits in depersonalization disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear to what degree depersonalization disorder (DPD) and alexithymia share abnormal brain mechanisms of emotional dysregulation. We compared cerebral processing of facial expressions of emotion in individuals with DPD to normal controls (NC). We presented happy and sad emotion expressions in increasing intensities from neutral (0%) through mild (50%) to intense (100%) to DPD and non-referred NC subjects in an implicit event-related fMRI design, and correlated respective brain activations with responses on the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and its three subscales F1-F3. The TAS-20 predicts clinical diagnosis of DPD with a unique variance proportion of 38%. Differential regression analysis was utilized to ascertain brain regions for each alexithymia subscale. Differential regions of total alexithymia severity for happy emotion were the globus pallidus externus; for identifying feelings (TAS-20 F1 subscale), the right anterior insula; for description of feelings (F2), the right dorsal mid-anterior cingulate gyrus (BA 24); and for externally oriented cognitive style (F3), the left paracingulate gyrus (BA 32). For sad emotion, the differential region for the total TAS-20 score was the dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus (BA 24); for TAS-20 F1, the left inferior anterior insula; for TAS-20 F2, the right PCC (BA 31); and for TAS-20 F3, the right orbital gyrus (BA 10). Supporting our hypotheses, the ascertained brain regions for TAS-20 subscales subserve interoception, monitoring and reflection of internal states and emotion. The presented analyses provide evidence that alexithymia plays a substantial role in emotional dysregulation in DPD, presumably based on restrictions in interoception.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".