MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133017424

Cortical mechanisms of emotion regulation in young children responding to angry, neutral, and happy faces

2005· dissertation· W7133017424 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Todd

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2005
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyAngerFacial expressionNormativeEmotion classificationAffect (linguistics)Affective neuroscienceTrait
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of neural mechanisms underlying emotion regulation is currently of great interest to developmental psychologists. In order to assess normative patterns and individual differences in mechanisms of emotion regulation mediated by the frontal cortices, we examined young children's event-related potentials (ERPs) across varying emotional conditions. EEG was recorded from thirteen 4–6-year-old children, who viewed on-screen pictures of angry, neutral, and happy faces while engaged in a go/no-go task. Peak medial-frontal ERPs following picture and response cue onset were compared across emotion face types and correlated with trait anxiety. As predicted, angry faces generated the largest and fastest ERPs. Source analysis indicated centromedial and right-inferior frontal sources contributing to the ERPs for angry faces. Following the response cue, ERPs were largest when responses were withheld. Finally, more anxious children showed faster ERPs for angry faces. These results are interpreted in terms of early-developing attentional mechanisms recruited to regulate anxiety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→