Aggression‐related brain function assessed with the Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm in fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (PSAP) measures aggressive behavior in response to provocations. The aim of the study was to implement the PSAP in a functional neuroimaging environment (fMRI) and evaluate aggression-related brain reactivity including response to provocations and associations with aggression within the paradigm. Twenty healthy participants completed two 12-min PSAP sessions within the scanner. We evaluated brain responses to aggressive behavior (removing points from an opponent), provocations (point subtractions by the opponent), and winning points. Our results showed significant ventral and dorsal striatal reactivity when participants won a point and removed one from the opponent. Provocations significantly activated the amygdala, dorsal striatum, insula, and prefrontal areas. Task-related aggressive behavior was positively correlated with neural reactivity to provocations in the insula, the dorsal striatum, and prefrontal areas. Our findings suggest the PSAP within an fMRI environment may be a useful tool for probing aggression-related neural pathways. Activity in the amygdala, dorsal striatum, insula, and prefrontal areas during provocations is consistent with the involvement of these brain regions in emotional and impulsive behavior. Striatal reactivity may suggest an involvement of reward during winning and stealing points.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".