Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the differences of event-related potentials(ERPs) elicited by the target pictures during subliminal or supraliminal affective priming task between alexithymic and nonalexithymic,and explore neurophysiological mechanism of the deficit of automatic emotion processing in alexithymia.Methods: The Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS-20) was applied twice with a three months interval,alexithymic and nonalexithymic were selected to finish affective priming tasks.Prime pictures were presented subliminally or supraliminally,and subjects were required to judge whether the target picture was positive or negative,while the ERPs were recorded.Results: In supraliminal priming tasks,the alexithymic was characterized by the decreased P2 peak amplitude and N600(difference wave,primed minus unprimed) peak amplitude,while in subliminal affective priming tasks,there were no significant differences of peak latencies and amplitudes between alexithymic and nonalexithymic.Conclusion: This study provides further ERPs evidences to support that alexthymic has deficit in automatic processing for emotional information that is aware of,while has no deficit in automatic processing for emotional information that is not aware of.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".