Dataset Information

The Neural Correlate Difference Between Positive and Negative Awe.

ABSTRACT: Awe is an emotional response to perceptually vast stimuli that transcend current frames of reference. Narrative and experimental work has characterized two distinct variants of awe: positive and negative; however, little is known about the structural neural basis associated with the differences of these two variants of awe. In this study, we investigated the structural neural basis of positive and negative awe underlying individual differences among 62 young healthy adults. Specifically, we assessed the association between regional gray matter volume (rGMV) and the two different variants of awe using the voxel-based morphometry (VBM). A partial correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between rGMV and behavioral positive and negative awe, while controlling for sex, age and total GMV. VBM indicated that positive awe was positively correlated with GMV in the precuneus, and negatively correlated with GMV in the left fusiform and the right calcarine. Negative awe was negatively correlated with GMV in the left and right insula, and the left superior temporal gyrus. These results provide a neural explanation for the differences of these two variants of awe.

SUBMITTER: Guan F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6597956 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Neural Correlate Difference Between Positive and Negative Awe.

Guan Fang F Zhao Sasa S Chen Shaona S Lu Shi S Chen Jun J Xiang Yanhui Y

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20190621

Awe is an emotional response to perceptually vast stimuli that transcend current frames of reference. Narrative and experimental work has characterized two distinct variants of awe: positive and negative; however, little is known about the structural neural basis associated with the differences of these two variants of awe. In this study, we investigated the structural neural basis of positive and negative awe underlying individual differences among 62 young healthy adults. Specifically, we asse ...[more]

PMID: 31281246

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo determine whether convolutional neural networks can detect morphological differences between images of microbiologically positive and negative corneal ulcers.MethodsA cross-sectional comparison of prospectively collected data consisting of bacterial and fungal cultures and smears from eyes with acute infectious keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital. Two convolutional neural network architectures (DenseNet and MobileNet) were trained using images obtained from handheld cameras collected from culture-positive and negative images and smear-positive and -negative images. Each architecture was trained on two image sets: (1) one with labels assigned using only culture results and (2) one using culture and smear results. The outcome measure was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting whether an ulcer would be microbiologically positive or negative.ResultsThere were 1970 images from 886 patients were included. None of the models were better than random chance at predicting positive microbiologic results (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.49 to 0.56; all confidence intervals included 0.5).ConclusionsThese two state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural network architectures could not reliably predict whether a corneal ulcer would be microbiologically positive or negative based on clinical photographs. This absence of detectable morphological differences informs the future development of computer vision models trained to predict the causative agent in infectious keratitis using corneal photography.Translational relevanceThese deep learning models were not able to identify morphological differences between microbiologically positive and negative corneal ulcers. This finding suggests that similar artificial intelligence models trained to identify the causative pathogen using only microbiologically positive cases may have potential to generalize well, including to cases with falsely negative microbiologic testing.

Project description:BackgroundOropharyngeal cancers (OPC) secondary to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections likely represent a completely different disease compared with conventional head and neck cancers. Our objective was to analyze a surgically treated cohort to determine predictors of outcome in HPV-positive versus HPV-negative patients.MethodsHPV positivity was inferred based on p16-immunohistochemistry. Data was available for 201 patients with OPC treated with surgical resection with/without adjuvant radiotherapy between 1985 and 2005. Subsite distribution was: 66 (33 %) tonsil, 46 (23 %) soft palate, and 89 (44 %) tongue base. Patients were classified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on p16 status and smoking history. Outcomes stratified by p16 status and risk groups were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors predictive of outcome were determined by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsIn this cohort, 30 % had locally advanced disease (pT3/T4) and 71 % had nodal metastasis. The 5-year overall (OS), disease-specific, and recurrence-free survival rates were 60, 76, and 66 %, respectively. There were 22 % low-, 34 % intermediate-, and 44 % high-risk patients. Patients who were p16-positive had better survival compared with p16-negative (OS, 74 vs. 44 %; p < .001). Similarly, low-risk group patients had a better survival compared with intermediate- and high-risk groups (OS, 76, 68, 45 %, respectively, p < .001). Independent predictors of survival in p16-negative patients included margin status, lymphovascular invasion, pN status, and extracapsular spread. In contrast, none of these were predictive in p16-positive patients.ConclusionsSurgically treated patients with p16-positive OPC have superior survival compared with p16-negative patients. Outcomes in p16-positive and p16-negative OPC are determined by different prognostic factors supporting the notion that these are very different diseases. These should be incorporated into future clinical trials design.

Dataset Information

The Neural Correlate Difference Between Positive and Negative Awe.

Publications

The Neural Correlate Difference Between Positive and Negative Awe.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets