Emotions and Their Cognitive Control in Children With Cerebellar Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A constellation of deficits, termed the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS), has been reported following acquired cerebellar lesions. We studied emotion identification and the cognitive control of emotion in children treated for acquired tumors of the cerebellum. Participants were 37 children (7-16 years) treated for cerebellar tumors (19 benign astrocytomas (AST), 18 malignant medulloblastomas (MB), and 37 matched controls (CON). The Emotion Identification Task investigated recognition of happy and sad emotions in music. In two cognitive control tasks, we investigated whether children could identify emotion in situations in which the emotion in the music and the emotion in the lyrics was either congruent or incongruent. Children with cerebellar tumors identified emotion as accurately and quickly as controls (p > .05), although there was a significant interaction of emotions and group (p < .01), with the MB group performing less accurately identifying sad emotions, and both cerebellar tumor groups were impaired in the cognitive control of emotions (p < .01). The fact that childhood acquired cerebellar tumors disrupt cognitive control of emotion rather than emotion identification provides some support for a model of the CCAS as a disorder, not so much of emotion as of the regulation of emotion by cognition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".