| Title |
Topographical Subcomponents of Electrical Brain Activity Allow to Identify Semantic Learning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brain Topography, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10548-017-0556-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wolfgang Skrandies, Haruo Shinoda |
| Abstract |
We investigated the change of event-related brain activity elicited by reading meaningful or meaningless Japanese symbols in 20 healthy German adults. In a learning phase of about 20 min, subjects acquired the meaning of 20 Kanji characters. As control stimuli 20 different Kanji characters were presented. Electrical brain activity was obtained before and after learning, The mean learning performance of all subjects was 92.5% correct responses. EEG was measured simultaneously from 30 channels, artifacts were removed offline, and the data before and after learning were compared. We found five spatial principal components that accounted for 83.8% of the variance. A significant interaction between training time (before/after learning) and stimulus (learning/control) illustrates a significant relation between successful learning and topographical changes of brain activity elicited by Kanji characters. Effects that were induced by learning were seen at short latencies in the order of 100 ms. In addition, we present evidence that differences in the weighted combination of spatial components allow to identify experimental conditions successfully by linear discriminant analysis using topographical ERP data of a single time point. In conclusion, semantic meaning can be aquired rapidly and it is associated with specific changes of ERP components. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,448,846
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Brain Topography
#302
of 485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,277
of 310,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Topography
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 485 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 310,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.