The elusive neural signature of emotion regulation capabilities: evidence from a large-scale consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cognitive reappraisal is a fundamental emotion regulation strategy for mental and physical well-being, but how its neural mechanisms relate to individual differences remains poorly understood. In a consortium effort analyzing 40 fMRI datasets ( N =2,175), we examined the relationship between neural activation during reappraisal tasks and three core individual difference indices of reappraisal capabilities: (1) trait questionnaires, (2) task-based affective ratings, and (3) amygdala down-regulation. Strikingly, there was no shared overlap across these three common indices. Only a very weak correlation emerged between amygdala down-regulation and task-based affective ratings. Whole-brain analyses revealed no reliable neural associations with trait questionnaires, and associations with task-based affective ratings fell outside canonical emotion regulation networks (e.g., prefrontal circuitry). Moreover, amygdala down-regulation, often interpreted as a stable individual marker, was confounded by person-specific whole-brain responses — a limitation extending to fMRI research beyond the emotion regulation domain. These findings challenge the assumption that an individual’s prefrontal activity is a valid indicator of their reappraisal capabilities and suggest that common trait, behavioral, and neural measures might capture distinct facets of emotion regulation. More broadly, our results highlight concrete methodological challenges for fMRI research on individual differences, with implications extending beyond emotion regulation to the neuroscience of personality, psychopathology, and general well-being.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".