MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893110500 · doi:10.1167/18.10.148

Alexithymia and the processing of emotional scenes depicting implied motion

2018· article· en· W2893110500 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah N. Rigby, Lorna S. Jakobson, Brenda M. Stoesz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyLateralityStimulus (psychology)Valence (chemistry)Toronto Alexithymia ScaleCognitionAudiologyMotion (physics)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceMedicineComputer scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive alexithymia is associated with impairments in identifying, verbalizing, and analyzing (particularly negative) emotions, which may be rooted in atypical hemispheric laterality and/or stimulus properties. We investigated how alexithymic traits affected processing of emotional scenes using a laterality task in which participants judged the pleasantness of 120 images presented in the presence or absence of a peripheral distractor. Half of the scenes depicted implied motion. Right-handed adults (N = 106) were classified as exhibiting low, moderate, or high levels of cognitive alexithymia using scores from the Toronto Alexithymia Scale – 20 (Parker et al., 2003). Contrary to expectations, no laterality effects were observed. Participants made correct judgments more quickly when a peripheral distractor was presented with the scene, F(2, 103) = 90.43, p < .001, ηp2 = .468. Participants were also slower at correctly judging negatively valenced scenes, F(1, 103) = 6.50, p = .012, ηp2 = .059, and those that contained implied motion, F(1, 103) = 6.04, p = .016, ηp2 = .055, suggesting that these scenes were difficult to process. Accuracy was higher for positive scenes with no implied motion than for other types of scenes, F(1, 103) = 32.93, p < .001, ηp2 = .242. Finally, participants with low levels of alexithymia showed better accuracy for positive scenes but no effect of implied motion, whereas those with moderate-to-high alexithymia showed the opposite pattern [Group X Motion: F(2, 103) = 4.03, p = .02, ηp2 = .073; Group X Valence: F(2, 103) = 3.03, p = .05, ηp2 = .056]. Overall, our results show that stimulus properties, such as implied motion and valence, influence how effectively people with varying levels of cognitive alexithymia process emotional information. These findings provide new insights into the nature of alexithymic deficits and into the functioning of the social brain more generally. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207