Alexithymia predicts the malleability of bodily representations in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Body-ownership involves an attentional focus on and awareness of internal body sensations. While it is known that abnormalities in body-ownership occur in eating disorders, relevant psychological variables modulating body-ownership remain unclear. First empirical results evidence that body-ownership is associated with alexithymia in adults. Therefore, we wanted to explore the relationship between alexithymia and body-ownership in adolescents in more detail. Methods: 54 (28 female) participants aged between 11 and 17 years were examined. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale, a common self-report questionnaire, was used to assess affective and cognitive aspects of alexithymia. A multi-sensory-induced manipulation of body-ownership, the rubberhand illusion (RHI), was then introduced, probing the malleability of body ownership and operationalizing the strength of the illusion using behavioural (proprioceptive drift), physiological (temperature change) and introspective measures (subjective feelings). Findings: High scores in alexithymia (affective subscale difficulties in identifying feeling) were associated with a stronger body-illusion tendency (behavioral and subjective measures). Discussion: The observed positive relationship between alexithymia and the RHI suggests an increased malleability of the bodily self in adolescents which might serve as risk-factor for disturbed embodiment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".