Alexithymia and the Evaluation of Emotionally Valenced Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia is a personality trait characterized by difficulties identifying and describing feelings (DIF and DDF) and an externally-oriented thinking style (EOT). The primary aim of the present study was to investigate links between alexithymia and the evaluation of emotional scenes. We also investigated whether viewers’ evaluations of emotional scenes were better predicted by specific alexithymic traits or by individual differences in sensory processing sensitivity (SPS). Participants (N = 106) completed measures of alexithymia and SPS along with a task requiring speeded judgments of the pleasantness of 120 moderately arousing scenes. We did not replicate laterality effects previously described with the scene perception task. Compared to those with weak alexithymic traits, individuals with moderate-to-strong alexithymic traits were less likely to classify positively valenced scenes as pleasant, and less likely to classify scenes with (vs. without) implied motion in a way that was consistent with normative scene valence ratings. In addition, regression analyses confirmed that reporting strong EOT and a tendency to be easily overwhelmed by busy sensory environments negatively predicted classification accuracy for positive scenes, and that both DDF and EOT negatively predicted classification accuracy for scenes depicting implied motion. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for stimulus characteristics and individual differences in specific traits associated with alexithymia and SPS when investigating the processing of emotional stimuli. Learning more about the links between these individual difference variables may have significant clinical implications, given that alexithymia is an important, transdiagnostic risk factor for a wide range of psychopathologies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".