Valence Asymmetries in the Human Amygdala: Task Relevance Modulates Amygdala Responses to Positive More than Negative Affective Cues
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organisms must constantly balance appetitive needs with vigilance for potential threats. Recent research suggests that the amygdala may play an important role in both of these goals. Although the amygdala plays a role in processing motivationally relevant stimuli that are positive or negative, negative information often appears to carry greater weight. From a functional perspective, this may reflect the fact that threatening stimuli generally require action, whereas appetitive stimuli can often be safely ignored. In this study, we examine whether amygdala activation to positive stimuli may be more sensitive to task goals than negative stimuli, which are often related to self-preservation concerns. During fMRI, participants were presented with two images that varied on valence and extremity and were instructed to focus on one of the images. Results indicated that negative stimuli elicited greater amygdala activity regardless of task relevance. In contrast, positive stimuli only led to a relative increase in amygdala activity when they were task relevant. This suggests that the amygdala may be more responsive to negative stimuli regardless of their relevance to immediate goals, whereas positive stimuli may only elicit amygdala activity when they are relevant to the perceivers' goals. This pattern of valence asymmetry in the human amygdala may help balance approach-related goal pursuit with chronic self-preservation goals.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it