Cortical activation in alexithymia as a response to emotional stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alexithymia has been shown to be related to many psychiatric and somatic illnesses. Aberrant emotion processing in the brain may underlie several psychiatric disorders. However, little is known about the neurobiological underpinnings of alexithymia. AIMS: To determine the way in which the brain processes emotion in alexithymia. METHOD: The participants were 10 healthy women with alexithymia and 11 healthy women without this condition, recruited into the study on the basis of their scores on the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Four films were projected on a video screen to induce each of three emotional conditions (neutral, amusement, sadness). The brain areas activated during emotional stimuli in the alexithymia group were compared with those activated in the non-alexithymia group. Scans of the distribution of [(15)O]H(2)O were acquired using a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner operated in three-dimensional mode. RESULTS: In response to emotional stimuli participants with alexithymia activated more parts of their sensory and motor cortices and insula, especially on the left side, and less of their anterior cingulate, compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Women with alexithymia seem to over-activate their 'bodily' brain regions, implying a different mode of emotion processing. This may be related to their tendency to experience physical symptoms.
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".