Antisocial and impulsive personality traits are linked to individual differences in somatosensory maps of emotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatosensory experience is an important component of emotion, playing a prominent role in many traditional emotion theories. Nonetheless, and despite the extensive literature on the influence of individual differences in emotional processing, the relation between personality traits and emotion-related somatosensation has received little attention. Here, we addressed this question in a large sample of healthy individuals through the "bodily maps of emotion" behavioural paradigm, in which participants indicated the location and extent of their body sensations for the 6 basic and 4 additional social emotions (contempt, envy, pride, shame). We found that emotional somatosensation in specific body areas, including the heart, the stomach, and the head, was related to specific personality factors, particularly antisocial attitudes and impulsivity. Moreover, the similarity of individual participants' maps to the group-average was likewise negatively correlated with antisocial tendencies. Overall, our results suggest that differences in individuals' sensitivity to somatosensation from different body areas, as well as the typicality of their topographical patterns, may partly underlie variation in higher-order social and affective traits.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".