Facial Emotion Perception in Borderline Personality Disorder: Differential Neural Activation to Ambiguous and Threatening Expressions and Links to Impairments in Self and Interpersonal Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) perceive emotional expressions in faces intended to convey no emotion and display a heightened sensitivity to facial expressions conveying threat, such as fear. In BPD, the amygdala activates in response to ambiguous and threatening facial expressions, although the differential sensitivity of this brain region to higher and lower intensities of fearful expressions and the relationship of this neural activity to personality impairments have not yet been investigated. METHODS: In the present study, we examined brain activation during an implicit facial emotion task with neutral faces and fearful expressions displayed at 50% and 100% intensity in patients with BPD (n=45) and healthy controls (HC; n=25). RESULTS: On neutral faces, higher brain activation was found in BPD compared to HC in the right temporal pole, amygdala, hippocampus, pallidum, and orbitofrontal cortex, whereas no significant whole-brain group differences were observed for either intensity of fearful expressions. A region-of-interest analysis focused on the amygdala-hippocampal complex showed greater activation for neutral and 50%-intensity fearful faces in BPD. Severity of personality impairment in the domains of empathy and identity were associated with higher precuneus activity during neutral and 100%-fearful face processing. LIMITATIONS: Brain activation differences of this naturalistic severely ill inpatient sample may be influenced by comorbid Axis-I disorders often seen in samples of BPD. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a heightened amygdala-hippocampal response to neutral faces and moderate-intensity fearful expressions in BPD, while self and interpersonal impairments are associated with task-based activations in regions implicated in self-referential processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".