Emotion Perception and Alexithymia in People With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: One Disorder or Two? A Preliminary Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary objective: Recent research studies attest to the presence of deficits in emotion perception following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Additionally, a growing number of studies report significant levels of alexithymia (disorder of emotional cognition) following TBI. This research aimed to examine the relation between the two, while assessing the influence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Design: Cross-sectional study examining levels of alexithymia, emotion perception disorders and PTSD and their association, in 20 people with severe, chronic TBI and 20 adults without brain injuries. Methods: Participants were assessed on the Toronto Alexithymia — 20 Scale, the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale and on two emotion perception tasks: matching and labelling of photos depicting the 6 basic emotions. Results: The group with TBI were impaired relative to controls when matching facial expressions. Their performance on ‘fear’ was especially poor. Performance on labelling was similar in pattern, although failed to reach significance. There was no association between poor performance on fear, or other negative expressions, and either PTSD or alexithymia symptoms in the TBI group. Conclusions: Alexithymia, as assessed by the TAS-20, taps a constellation of difficulties that do not appear to include difficulties with emotion perception in people with traumatic brain injuries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".