Up-regulation of neural indicators of empathic concern in an offender population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empathic concern has traditionally been conceived of as a spontaneous reaction to others experiencing pain or distress. As such, the potential role of more deliberate control over empathic responses has frequently been overlooked. The present fMRI study evaluated the role of such deliberate control in empathic concern by examining the extent to which a sample of offenders recruited through probation/parole could voluntarily modulate their neural activity to another person in pain. Offenders were asked to either passively view pictures of other people in painful or non-painful situations, or to actively modulate their level of concern for the person in pain. During passive viewing of painful versus non-painful pictures, offenders showed minimal neural activity in regions previously linked to empathy for pain (e.g., dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and bilateral insula). However, when instructed to try to increase their concern for the person in pain, offenders demonstrated significant increases within these regions. These findings are consistent with recent theories of empathy as motivational in nature, and suggest that limitations in empathic concern may include a motivational component.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".