Mediation role of alexithymia, sensory processing sensitivity and emotional-mental processes between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology: a self-report study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is overwhelming evidence for a strong association between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology. This study aims to investigate the mediation roles of alexithymia, sensory processing sensitivity, and emotional-mental processes in the relationship between childhood traumas and adult psychopathology. Methods 337 people (78.9% female, 21.1% male) between the ages of 20–64 participated in this study. Participants filled the scales online via google form. Reading Mind in the Eyes (EYES), Sensory Processing Sensitivity Scale (SPS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) were used. SPSS Process (Model 4) was used to examine the mediating role of sensory processing sensitivity, alexithymia and the eyes test results in the relationship between childhood trauma and psychopathology. Results Sensory processing sensitivity and alexithymia have been found to mediate the relationship between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology. The eyes test (mentalization) was not found to have a mediating effect on this relationship. Conclusion This study shows that childhood traumas may relate more psychopathology in individuals with high sensory processing sensitivity and alexithymia. Our study may contribute to the understanding of what may lead to a person's vulnerability to experiencing psychopathology after childhood trauma. It may be important that future treatment and intervention programs should include sensory sensitivity and alexithymia. Sensory processing sensitivity and alexithymic characteristics of individuals can be examined in the treatment of psychological problems of individuals who have experienced childhood trauma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".