Performing a task with a friend does not change semantic processes but preparation: a social N400 and CNV event-related potential study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The N400 event-related potential (ERP) indexes the semantic processing of words. Recently, social N400 effects were reported: N400 amplitudes were found to be larger in the presence of a confederate. We tested whether this increase would be even larger in participants with friends (Pwfs). This was not the case: whether the words were coherent, incoherent or equivocal, N400s were not larger in Pwfs than in alones. According to the N400 inhibition hypothesis, the social N400 effects previously reported with confederates could then be due to the automatic sidelining of information that occurs when building a common ground with a stranger. Interestingly, contingent negative variations (CNVs) developed as the words had to be classified at the occurrence of an imperative stimulus that followed. PwFs had larger CNVs than alones, suggesting heightened preparation to this imperative stimulus. Unexpectedly, the larger this effect, the less confident PwFs were in their classifications. Given their higher levels of state anxiety before and after the experiment, it thus seems that the presence of someone else completing the same task, even if it is a friend, induces performance pressure, enhances anxiety and preparation, and diminishes self-confidence.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".