MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201146617 · doi:10.1177/15500594211039937

Association Between the Visual N1-P2 Complex and Neuroticism

2021· article· en· W3201146617 on OpenAlexaff
Bowen Xiu, Christopher Andanty, Nasia Dai, Clement C. Zai, Ariel Graff, Heather E. McNeely, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Vincenzo De Luca

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroticismPsychologyAudiologyP200Working memoryContext (archaeology)N100Event-related potentialPersonalityDevelopmental psychologyBig Five personality traitsExtraversion and introversionElectroencephalographyCognitionVisual perceptionNeuroscienceMedicinePerceptionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroticism is a personality trait associated with impaired attention, memory, and error detection. Thus, the present study investigated the visual N100 and P200 event-related potentials components associated with attention using a 2-back working memory task in healthy neurotic and nonneurotic participants, evaluated using the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness Five Factor Inventory. A total of 35 healthy participants were asked to perform the 2-back task while recording electroencephalographic activity from 64 electrodes on the scalp. Analysis of the N100 and P200 amplitude and latency in high neuroticism and low neuroticism subjects showed an increased P200 amplitude and latency for high neuroticism subjects in the frontal and parietal regions, respectively. However, there were no significant performance differences between the high and low neuroticism subjects for the 2-back working memory task. Therefore, the results suggest that neuroticism is associated with the P200 component elicited in the context of a working memory task.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.089 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207