EEG alpha band functional connectivity reveals distinct cortical dynamics for overt and covert emotional face processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current knowledge regarding how the focus of our attention during face processing influences neural responses largely comes from neuroimaging studies reporting on regional brain activations. The present study was designed to add novel insights to this research by studying how attention can differentially impact the way cortical regions interact during emotional face processing. High-density electroencephalogram was recorded in a sample of fifty-two healthy participants during an emotional face processing task. The task required participants to either attend to the expressions (i.e., overt processing) or attend to a perceptual distractor, which rendered the expressions task-irrelevant (i.e., covert processing). Functional connectivity in the alpha band was estimated in source space and modeled using graph theory to quantify whole-brain integration and segregation. Results revealed that overt processing of facial expressions is linked to reduced cortical segregation and increased cortical integration, this latter specifically for negative expressions of fear and sadness. Furthermore, we observed increased communication efficiency during overt processing of negative expressions between the core and the extended face processing systems. Overall, these findings reveal that attention makes the interaction among the nodes involved in face processing more efficient, also uncovering a connectivity signature of the prioritized processing mechanism of negative expressions, that is an increased cross-communication within the nodes of the face processing network.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".