MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-positivity bias and/or other-negativity bias? A comprehensive examination of the ERP correlates of self- and other-referential processing in early adolescence

2024· preprint· en· W4392618168 on OpenAlexaff
Pan Liu, Jaron X. Y. Tan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyValence (chemistry)Negativity effectN400Mismatch negativityCognitive psychologyTask (project management)ReferentNeural correlates of consciousnessDevelopmental psychologyCognitionElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-referential information is uniquely salient and preferentially processed even in children. The literature has used the Self-Referent Encoding Task (SRET) combined with ERPs to study the neural substrates of self-referential processing and its role in development. However, no work has implemented a data-driven, comprehensive examination of the ERP correlates of SRET in youths by comparing a self-referential condition with an other-referential condition. Ninety-two 10-to-14-year-old typically developing youths completed an ERP version of the SRET consisting of a self-referential and an other-referential condition, following which they were unexpectedly asked to complete a recognition task of the presented words. A data-driven Principal Components Analysis isolated five SRET-elicited ERPs: P1, P2, N400, and anterior and posterior late positive potential (aLPP, pLPP). Two-way ANOVAs (Referent × Valence) demonstrated a “self-positivity” bias in aLPP, recognition, and memory sensitivity: youths showed an enhanced aLPP, better recognition, and higher memory sensitivity for Self-Positive versus Self-Negative words, whereas no such differences were found between Other-Positive and Other-negative words. Further, a (marginal) “other-negativity” bias was found in pLPP, P2, and recognition: youths displayed an enhanced pLPP and P2 and higher memory sensitivity in the Other-Negative versus Other-Positive condition, whereas no such pattern was observed in the Self conditions. We provided novel evidence on a self-positivity bias that uniquely favored positive self-referential words as well as an other-negativity bias that uniquely favored negative other-referential words. These findings contribute to our mechanistic knowledge of self-referential processing in youths and inform future studies on the role of self-referential processing in socioemotional development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207