MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Separate neural circuits for primary emotions? Brain activity during self-induced sadness and happiness in professional actors

2003· article· en· W2168528980 on OpenAlexafffund
Mario Pelletier, Alain Bouthillier, Johanne Lévesque, Serge Carrier, Claude Breault, Vincent Paquette, Boualem Mensour, Jean‐Maxime Leroux, Gilles Beaudoin, Pierre Bourgouin, Mario Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSadnessHappinessPsychologyOrbitofrontal cortexNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexOptogeneticsCortex (anatomy)AngerClinical psychologySocial psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of whether distinct or similar neural substrates underlie primary emotions has not been resolved yet. To address this issue, we used fMRI to scan professional actors during self-induced states of sadness and happiness. Results demonstrated that, relative to an emotionally Neutral state, both the Sad and the Happy states were associated with significant loci of activation, bilaterally, in the orbitofrontal cortex, and in the left medial prefrontal cortex, left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, left anterior temporal pole, and right pons. These loci of activation were localized distinctly within these regions, that is, in different sub-regions. These results suggest that sadness and happiness may be associated with similar brain regions but distinct sub-regions and neural circuits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207