↓ Skip to main content

Self-Specific Stimuli Interact Differently than Non-Self-Specific Stimuli with Eyes-Open Versus Eyes-Closed Spontaneous Activity in Auditory Cortex

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Self-Specific Stimuli Interact Differently than Non-Self-Specific Stimuli with Eyes-Open Versus Eyes-Closed Spontaneous Activity in Auditory Cortex
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00437
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pengmin Qin, Simone Grimm, Niall W. Duncan, Giles Holland, Jia shen Guo, Yan Fan, Anne Weigand, Juergen Baudewig, Malek Bajbouj, Georg Northoff

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that there may be a distinct relationship between spontaneous neural activity and subsequent or concurrent self-specific stimulus-induced activity. This study aims to test the impact of spontaneous activity as recorded in an eyes-open (EO) resting state as opposed to eyes-closed (EC) on self-specific versus non-self-specific auditory stimulus-induced activity in fMRI. In our first experiment we used self-specific stimuli comprised of the subject's own name and non-self-specific stimuli comprised of a friend's name and an unknown name, presented during EO versus EC baselines in a 3 name condition × 2 baseline design. In Experiment 2 we directly measured spontaneous activity in the absence of stimuli during EO versus EC to confirm a modulatory effect of the two baseline conditions in the regions found to show an interaction effect in Experiment 1. Spontaneous activity during EO was significantly higher than during EC in bilateral auditory cortex and non-self-specific names yielded stronger signal changes relative to EO baseline than to EC. In contrast, there was no difference in response to self-specific names relative to EO baseline than to EC despite the difference between spontaneous activity levels. These results support an impact of spontaneous activity on stimulus-induced activity, moreover an impact that depends on the high-level stimulus characteristic of self-specificity.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 5%
Japan 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 38 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 33%
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 38%
Neuroscience 8 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Engineering 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 4 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2013.
All research outputs
#17,691,546
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,696
of 7,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,191
of 280,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#727
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.