Being only with yourself enhances the binding of stimulus representations with both egocentric- and allocentric-representations of the self: A P2 event-related potential study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceiving a stimulus involves the awareness that it is we who are perceiving it. Representations activated by the stimulus are thus automatically bound to representations of the self. Interestingly, previous research has shown that the amplitude of the P2 event-related brain potential (ERP) is larger for stimuli to which participants can refer themselves. This suggests that the P2 may index the binding of stimulus representations with self-representations and that this binding is modulable, like other automatic processes. P2 amplitudes could then be larger in participants who are only with themselves than in those with a friend (PwFs). Consistently, we found larger P2s in alones (n = 53) than in PwFs (n = 47) at two scalp locations. Firstly, at the midline central electrode, where large self-referencing effects were previously observed, indicating stronger binding with egocentric self-representations. Secondly, at the left temporo-occipital sites, suggesting stronger allocentric self-representation binding. Furthermore, these P2 effects were maximal for words with richer meanings, that is, for equivocal ones, intermediate for unequivocal-, and minimal for meaningless stimuli. P2 amplitude was thus modulated not only by current self-representations but also by stimulus representations, in accordance with the idea that it indexes their binding.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".