MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918724774 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00457

Neurophysiological Effects Associated With Subliminal Conditioning of Appetite Motivations

2019· article· en· W2918724774 on OpenAlexafffund
Micah Amd, Sylvain Baillet

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsSubliminal stimuliPsychologyConditioningAppetiteNeurophysiologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When attempting to encourage eating, explicitly providing statements like ‘eating is pleasant’ may produce little effect. This may be due to subjective, negatively-valenced narratives evoked by perception of the verb ‘eating' (e.g., eating  fat  lonely), overriding any explicitly provided eating-pleasant valence information. In our study, we presented eating-related verbs under subliminal visual conditions to mitigate the onset of eating-associated deliberation. Verbs were linked with neutral or positively valenced terms across independent blocks. Modulations of event-related magnetoencephalographic (MEG) components and parietal activations in the alpha range (8-12 Hz) illustrated a significant effect of valence during pre-lexical time windows. We found significantly greater saliva production and declarations of increasing hunger after eating-related verbs were linked with positive terms. Orally reported preferences did not vary between conditions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207