Patricia Milz, Pascal L. Faber, Dietrich Lehmann, Kieko Kochi, Roberto D. Pascual-Marqui
Abstract
We investigated brain functional connectivity comparing no-task resting to breath counting (a meditation exercise but given as task without referring to meditation). Functional connectivity computed as EEG coherence between head-surface data suffers from localization ambiguity, reference dependence, and overestimation due to volume conduction. Lagged coherence between intracortical model sources addresses these criticisms. With this analysis approach, experienced meditators reportedly showed reduced coherence during meditation, meditation-naïve participants have not yet been investigated. 58-channel EEG from 23 healthy, right-handed, meditation-naïve males during resting [3 runs] and breath counting [2 runs] was computed into sLORETA time series of intracortical electrical activity in 19 regions of interest (ROI) corresponding to the cortex underlying 19 scalp electrode sites, for each of the eight independent EEG frequency bands covering 1.5-44 Hz. Intracortical lagged coherences and head-surface conventional coherences were computed between the 19 regions/sites. During breath counting compared to resting, paired t-tests corrected for multiple testing revealed four significantly lower intracortical lagged coherences, but four significantly higher head-surface conventional coherences. Lowered intracortical lagged coherences involved left BA 10 and right BAs 3, 10, 17, 40. In conclusion, intracortical lagged coherence can yield results that are inverted to those of head-surface conventional coherence. The lowered functional connectivity between cognitive control areas and sensory perception areas during meditation-type breath counting compared to resting conceivably reflects the attention to a bodily percept without cognitive reasoning. The reductions in functional connectivity were similar but not as widespread as the reductions reported during meditation in experienced meditators.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 July 2014.
All research outputs
#7,387,034
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,215
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,286
of 226,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#137
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 226,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
