MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914850745 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00175

Neuroticism and Frontal EEG Asymmetry Correlated With Dynamic Facial Emotional Processing in Adolescents

2019· article· en· W2914850745 on OpenAlexaff
Seyedeh Maryam Moshirian Farahi, Mohammad Javad Asghari Ebrahimabad, Ali Gorji, Imanollah Bigdeli, Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Moshirian Farahi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroticismValence (chemistry)AngerElectroencephalographySadnessDisgustPsychopathologyAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPersonalityPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this research was to investigate the link between resting frontal EEG asymmetry, neuroticism and the valence of emotional face processing in adolescents. Fifty right-handed adolescents (50 % male; mean age = 14.20, SD = 1.97) were selected from schools in Mashhad. In order to investigate variables, we used BFQ-C, ADFES-BIV, and EEG. All data were analyzed using SPSS 22. The results showed that neuroticism correlates with the valences of fear, disgust, sadness, and surprise, but not with happiness, anger, and neutral faces. Furthermore, it was found that N was significantly positively correlated with mid-frontal asymmetry (F3–F4), and the lateral-frontal (F7-F8), whereas no correlation was found between N and frontal pole (Fp1-Fp2). We found significant negative correlations between the valence of fear, Fp1-Fp2, F3-F4, and F7-F8. The interaction findings revealed that neuroticism*mid-frontal asymmetry can significantly affect the valence of fear. Therefore, neuroticism and mid-frontal EEG asymmetry may serve as a risk indicator for psychopathology.

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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207