MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of hedonics in the Human Affectome

2019· review· en· W2944459080 on OpenAlexaff
Susanne Becker, Anne‐Kathrin Bräscher, Scott Bannister, Moustafa Bensafi, Destany Calma‐Birling, Raymond C. K. Chan, Tuomas Eerola, Dan‐Mikael Ellingsen, Camille Ferdenzi, Jamie L. Hanson, Mateus Joffily, Navdeep K. Lidhar, Leroy Lowe, Loren J. Martin, Erica D. Musser, Michael Noll‐Hussong, Thomas M. Olino, Rosario Pintos Lobo, Yi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaNeuroDevNetRoyal Canadian NavyUniversity of Toronto
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie ActionsNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Key Research and Development Program of China Stem Cell and Translational ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversité de LyonNorges ForskningsrådAgence Nationale de la RechercheKey Laboratory Of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of SciencesDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPleasureFeelingPsychologyValence (chemistry)Pain and pleasureAffect (linguistics)Cognitive psychologyCognitionCognitive scienceSocial psychologyNeuroscienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiencing pleasure and displeasure is a fundamental part of life. Hedonics guide behavior, affect decision-making, induce learning, and much more. As the positive and negative valence of feelings, hedonics are core processes that accompany emotion, motivation, and bodily states. Here, the affective neuroscience of pleasure and displeasure that has largely focused on the investigation of reward and pain processing, is reviewed. We describe the neurobiological systems of hedonics and factors that modulate hedonic experiences (e.g., cognition, learning, sensory input). Further, we review maladaptive and adaptive pleasure and displeasure functions in mental disorders and well-being, as well as the experience of aesthetics. As a centerpiece of the Human Affectome Project, language used to express pleasure and displeasure was also analyzed, and showed that most of these analyzed words overlap with expressions of emotions, actions, and bodily states. Our review shows that hedonics are typically investigated as processes that accompany other functions, but the mechanisms of hedonics (as core processes) have not been fully elucidated.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.460
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.050 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations85
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral ReviewsSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207