Have we met before? Neural correlates of emotional learning in women with social phobia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Altered memory processes are thought to be a key mechanism in the etiology of anxiety disorders, but little is known about the neural correlates of fear learning and memory biases in patients with social phobia. The present study therefore examined whether patients with social phobia exhibit different patterns of neural activation when confronted with recently acquired emotional stimuli. METHODS: Patients with social phobia and a group of healthy controls learned to associate pseudonames with pictures of persons displaying either a fearful or a neutral expression. The next day, participants read the pseudonames in the magnetic resonance imaging scanner. Afterwards, 2 memory tests were carried out. RESULTS: We enrolled 21 patients and 21 controls in our study. There were no group differences for learning performance, and results of the memory tests were mixed. On a neural level, patients showed weaker amygdala activation than controls for the contrast of names previously associated with fearful versus neutral faces. Social phobia severity was negatively related to amygdala activation. Moreover, a detailed psychophysiological interaction analysis revealed an inverse correlation between disorder severity and frontolimbic connectivity for the emotional > neutral pseudonames contrast. LIMITATIONS: Our sample included only women. CONCLUSION: Our results support the theory of a disturbed cortico limbic interplay, even for recently learned emotional stimuli. We discuss the findings with regard to the vigilance-avoidance theory and contrast them to results indicating an oversensitive limbic system in patients with social phobia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".