MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514641128 · doi:10.1037/emo0000209

Separating neural activity associated with emotion and implied motion: An fMRI study.

2016· article· en· W2514641128 on OpenAlexafffund
Tiffany A. Kolesar, Jennifer Kornelsen, Stephen D. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEmotion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyPrecentral gyrusPerceptionInsulaNeural correlates of consciousnessCognitive psychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingEmotion perceptionMotion perceptionNeuroscienceMotion (physics)Movement (music)Biological motionCognitionArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research provides evidence for an emo-motoric neural network allowing emotion to modulate activity in regions of the nervous system related to movement. However, recent research suggests that these results may be due to the movement depicted in the stimuli. The purpose of the current study was to differentiate the unique neural activity of emotion and implied motion using functional MRI. Thirteen healthy participants viewed 4 sets of images: (a) negative stimuli implying movement, (b) negative stimuli not implying movement, (c) neutral stimuli implying movement, and (d) neutral stimuli not implying movement. A main effect for implied motion was found, primarily in regions associated with multimodal integration (bilateral insula and cingulate), and visual areas that process motion (bilateral middle temporal gyrus). A main effect for emotion was found primarily in occipital and parietal regions, indicating that emotion enhances visual perception. Surprisingly, emotion also activated the left precentral gyrus, a motor region. These results demonstrate that emotion elicits activity above and beyond that evoked by the perception of implied movement, but that the neural representations of these characteristics overlap. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmotionSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207