| Title |
Oscillatory brain activity differentially reflects false belief understanding and complementation syntax processing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-018-0565-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yao Guan, M. Jeffrey Farrar, Andreas Keil |
| Abstract |
False belief understanding (FBU) enables people to consider conflicting beliefs about the same situation. While language has been demonstrated to be a correlate of FBU, there is still controversy about the extent to which a specific aspect of language, complementation syntax, is a necessary condition for FBU. The present study tested an important notion from the debate proposing that complementation syntax task is redundant to FBU measures. Specifically, we examined electrophysiological correlates of false belief, false complementation, and their respective true conditions in adults using electroencephalography (EEG), focusing on indices of oscillatory brain activity and large-scale connectivity. The results showed strong modulation of parieto-occipital alpha (8-12 Hz) and beta (13-20 Hz) power by the experimental manipulations, with heightened sustained alpha power reflective of effortful internal processing observed in the false compared to the true conditions and reliable beta power reductions sensitive to mentalizing and/or syntactic demands in the belief versus the complementation conditions. In addition, higher coupling between parieto-occipital regions and widespread frontal sites in the beta band was found for the false-belief condition selectively. The result of divergence in beta oscillatory activity and in connectivity between false belief and false complementation does not support the redundancy hypothesis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 9 | 82% |
| Guinea | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 55% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 20% |
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,490,093
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#161
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,245
of 448,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 448,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.