Beyond the brain localization of complex traits: Distributed white matter markers of personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Extensive work in personality neuroscience has shown mixed results in the ability to localize reliable relationships between personality traits and neuroimaging measures. However, recent work in translational neuroimaging has recognized that multifaceted psychological dispositions are not represented in discrete, highly localized brain areas. As such, standard univariate neuroimaging analyses may not be well-suited for capturing broad personality traits supported by distributed networks. METHOD: The present study uses an out-of-sample predictive modeling approach to identify multivariate signatures of Big Five personality traits within the structural integrity of white matter pathways using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. In Study 1 (N = 491), we trained a ridge regression model to predict each of the Big Five traits and tested these models in an independent hold-out subsample. RESULTS: We found that models for both Neuroticism and Openness were significantly related to predictive accuracy in the hold-out sample. Study 2 (N = 108) applied Study 1's predictive models to an independent set of data collected on a different scanner and using a different Big Five scale. Here, we found that the model for Neuroticism remained a significant predictor of individual difference. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence that this white matter signature of Neuroticism generalizes across differences in measurement and samples.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".