| Title |
EEG source imaging during two Qigong meditations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Processing, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10339-012-0441-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pascal L. Faber, Dietrich Lehmann, Shisei Tei, Takuya Tsujiuchi, Hiroaki Kumano, Roberto D. Pascual-Marqui, Kieko Kochi |
| Abstract |
Experienced Qigong meditators who regularly perform the exercises "Thinking of Nothing" and "Qigong" were studied with multichannel EEG source imaging during their meditations. The intracerebral localization of brain electric activity during the two meditation conditions was compared using sLORETA functional EEG tomography. Differences between conditions were assessed using t statistics (corrected for multiple testing) on the normalized and log-transformed current density values of the sLORETA images. In the EEG alpha-2 frequency, 125 voxels differed significantly; all were more active during "Qigong" than "Thinking of Nothing," forming a single cluster in parietal Brodmann areas 5, 7, 31, and 40, all in the right hemisphere. In the EEG beta-1 frequency, 37 voxels differed significantly; all were more active during "Thinking of Nothing" than "Qigong," forming a single cluster in prefrontal Brodmann areas 6, 8, and 9, all in the left hemisphere. Compared to combined initial-final no-task resting, "Qigong" showed activation in posterior areas whereas "Thinking of Nothing" showed activation in anterior areas. The stronger activity of posterior (right) parietal areas during "Qigong" and anterior (left) prefrontal areas during "Thinking of Nothing" may reflect a predominance of self-reference, attention and input-centered processing in the "Qigong" meditation, and of control-centered processing in the "Thinking of Nothing" meditation. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 149 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 18% |
| Researcher | 26 | 16% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 36 | 23% |
| Unknown | 27 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 57 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 9% |
| Engineering | 9 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 35 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 May 2012.
All research outputs
#15,328,200
of 24,406,678 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#180
of 347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,275
of 167,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,406,678 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 167,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.