Chemosensation in anxiety: the trigeminal system matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of a perceptual bias due to anxiety is well demonstrated in cognitive and sensory task for the visual and auditory modality. Event-related potentials, by their specific measurement of neural processes, have strongly contributed to this evidence. There is still no consensus as to whether such a bias exists in the chemical senses; chemosensory event-related potentials (CSERPs) are an excellent tool to clarify the heterogeneous results, especially since the Late Positive Component (LPC) may be an indicator of emotional involvement after chemosensory stimulation. This research examined the association between state and trait anxiety and the amplitude and latency of pure olfactory and mixed olfactory-trigeminal LPC. In this study, 20 healthy participants (11 women) with a mean age of 24.6 years (SD = 2.6) completed a validated questionnaire to measure anxiety (STAI), and CSERP was recorded during 40 pure olfactory stimulations (phenyl ethanol) and 40 mixed olfactory-trigeminal stimulations (eucalyptol). LPC latency and amplitude were measured at Cz (electrode located at midline central) for each participant. We observed a significant negative correlation between LPC latencies and the state anxiety scores for the mixed olfactory-trigeminal condition (r(18) = -0.513; P = 0.021), but not for the pure olfactory condition. We did not observe any effect on LPC amplitudes. This study suggests that a higher level of state anxiety is related to a more rapid perceptual electrophysiological response for mixed olfactory-trigeminal stimuli but not for pure odors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".