Is misokinesia sensitivity explained by visual attentional orienting? ERP evidence from an emotional oddball task suggests no
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Misokinesia is a prevalent condition characterized by strong, negative emotional reactions to the sight of repetitive fidgeting movements in others. Here we present the results of a study designed to explore the relationship between misokinesia sensitivity (MKS) and attentional sensitivity to affectively-valenced visual stimuli. In particular, we asked participants with either high or low levels of MKS to perform an emotional oddball task that included responding to faces that had either angry or happy expressions, while we recorded event-related potentials. We found that there were no significant differences between the two MKS groups in attentional sensitivity to these faces, as indexed by the amplitude of the P300 ERP component they elicited. Importantly, we could not ascribe this null ERP finding to either low statistical power or the idiosyncrasies of our ERP analysis parameters. As such, our findings add to growing evidence that MKS may not be the simple result of heightened attentional orienting responses to visual events, but rather, it may be associated with other aspects of cognitive-affective processing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".