Characteristics of Emotion Cognitive Processing and Cognitive Regulation in Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To explore the characteristics of emotion cognitive processing and cognitive regulation in alexithymia.Methods:A total of 117 alexithymic subjects(TAS-20 scores ≥58)and 118 nonalexithymic subjects(TAS-20 scores ≤38)were selected with the Chinese version of 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS-20),and their scores on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale(CES-D)and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire CERQ were compared.Then 51 alexithymic subjects and 54 nonalexithymic subjects were required to rate 120 affective pictures to three dimensions(valence,arousal and dominant).Results:(1)Compared with nonalexithymic group,alexithymic group got higher scores in negative coping dimension[(47.3±5.9) vs.(41.9±5.9),P0.001],while got lower scores in positive coping [(65.2±7.7) vs.(71.1±7.3),P0.001].(2)In valence rating,alexithymic group gave lower score for positive pictures[(7.0±1.0) vs.(7.7±1.0),P0.001]and higher score for negative pictures [(2.4±1.0) vs.(1.4±1.0),P0.001]than nonalexithymic group.In arousal dimension,alexithymic group gave lower scores to both positive pictures and negative pictures than nonalexithymic group[(6.3±1.2) vs.(6.8±1.1),(6.4±1.5) vs.(7.2±1.4);P0.01].Conclusion:Alexithymia subjects have deficits in emotion cognitive processing and emotion cognitive regulation.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".