Sensory modality and body-location imagery among persons with somatosensory amplification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess whether somatosensory amplification influenced the relationship between basic emotions and sensory modality and body image by the modality differential (MD) method and the body-image location (BIL) scale.Approximately 130 undergraduate students were administered the Japanese Version of the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS) and were asked to rate the relevance of 10 sensory modalities (warm, cold, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, pain, equilibrium, kinesthetic, visual, and auditory) and 7 body parts (forehead, throat, chest, stomach, lower abdomen, internal organs, and whole body) to 6 basic emotions (happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust).Participants also completed the Japanese version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale.Each emotion was compared between the two groups (high and low SSAS) using the MD method and BIL scale.The high SSAS's relevance of sadness, fear, anger, and surprise to the proximal sensory image was stronger than that of the low SSAS.Moreover, the high SSAS's relevance of happiness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust to body location image was stronger than that of the low SSAS.These results suggest that somatosensory amplification strongly influenced the combination of sensory modality and body image with emotion.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".