MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414972911 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.07.25337510

Neurocomputational evidence of sustained Self-Other mergence after psychedelics

2025· preprint· en· W4414972911 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo Mallaroni, Natasha L. Mason, Katrin H. Preller, Adeel Razi, Sam Ereira, Johannes G. Ramaekers

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsPsilocybinTemporoparietal junctionSubliminal stimuliPrefrontal cortexPerceptionTask (project management)Mental stateAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Mechanism (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mental illness is often characterised by a maladaptive sense of self . The neurobiological basis of Self-Other distinction may provide targets for therapeutic interventions. Psychedelics alter the experience of selfhood, but the neurocomputational mechanism is unclear. We used a computationally-informed behavioural assay to investigate whether psychedelics disrupt Self-Other boundaries in belief formation. In a double-blind, crossover design, 22 participants received placebo, psilocybin or 2C-B (2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine). The next day, we fitted reinforcement learning models to probabilistic false-belief task behaviour, yielding objective Self-Other distinction measures. Compared to placebo, psychedelics induced a state of Self-Other mergence, associated with a multivariate signal of sustained psychosocial wellbeing. Effective-connectivity estimates from resting-state fMRI showed that this behavioural change was associated with reduced inhibitory tone from right temporoparietal junction to dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. We show that psychedelics quantifiably act on the neural basis of Self-Other distinction, offering potential routes to precision therapeutics in psychedelic psychiatry.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207