Seeing in my way or your way: impact of intelligence, attention, and empathy on brain reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies showed that neurotypical adults are able to engage in unconscious analyses of others' mental states in the context of automatic perspective taking and experience systematic difficulties when judging the conflicts between their own (Self) and another's (Other) perspective. Several functional MRI (fMRI) studies reported widespread activation of mentalizing, salience, and executive networks when adopting the Other compared to Self perspective. This study aims to explore whether cognitive and emotional parameters impact on brain reactivity in dot perspective task (dPT). We provide here an fMRI analysis based on individual z-scores in eighty-two healthy adults who underwent the Samson's dPT after detailed assessment of fluid intelligence, attention, levels of alexithymia and social cognition abilities. Univariate regression models were used to explore the association between brain activation patterns and psychological variables. There was a strong positive association between Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and fMRI z-scores in Self perspective. When the Other perspective is taken, Continuous Performance Test (CPT)-II parameters were negatively associated with fMRI z-scores. Individuals with higher Toronto Alexithymia scale (TAS) score and lower scores in mini-Social cognition and Emotional Assessment (SEA) displayed significantly higher egocentric interference-related fMRI z-scores. Our data demonstrate that brain activation when focusing on our own perspective depends on the levels of fluid intelligence. Decreased attentional recruitment and decreased inhibitory control affects the brain efforts to adopt the Other perspective. Egocentric interference-associated brain fMRI activation was less marked in cases with better empathy abilities but the opposite was true for persons who experience increased difficulties in the recognition of emotions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".