↓ Skip to main content

Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals probability-dependent changes in functional connectivity between right inferior frontal cortex and primary motor cortex during go/no-go…

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

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals probability-dependent changes in functional connectivity between right inferior frontal cortex and primary motor cortex during go/no-go performance
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00736
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Dilene van Campen, Franz-Xaver Neubert, Wery P. M. van den Wildenberg, K. Richard Ridderinkhof, Rogier B. Mars

Abstract

The functional role of the right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC) in mediating human behavior is the subject of ongoing debate. Activation of the rIFC has been associated with both response inhibition and with signaling action adaptation demands resulting from unpredicted events. The goal of this study is to investigate the role of rIFC by combining a go/no-go paradigm with paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (ppTMS) over rIFC and the primary motor cortex (M1) to probe the functional connectivity between these brain areas. Participants performed a go/no-go task with 20% or 80% of the trials requiring response inhibition (no-go trials) in a classic and a reversed version of the task, respectively. Responses were slower to infrequent compared to frequent go trials, while commission errors were more prevalent to infrequent compared to frequent no-go trials. We hypothesized that if rIFC is involved primarily in response inhibition, then rIFC should exert an inhibitory influence over M1 on no-go (inhibition) trials regardless of no-go probability. If, by contrast, rIFC has a role on unexpected trials other than just response inhibition then rIFC should influence M1 on infrequent trials regardless of response demands. We observed that rIFC suppressed M1 excitability during frequent no-go trials, but not during infrequent no-go trials, suggesting that the role of rIFC in response inhibition is context dependent rather than generic. Importantly, rIFC was found to facilitate M1 excitability on all low frequent trials, irrespective of whether the infrequent event involved response inhibition, a finding more in line with a predictive coding framework of cognitive control.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 92 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 29%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 34%
Neuroscience 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 26 27%
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 09 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,288,160
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,257
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,584
of 280,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#681
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 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 7,136 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 280,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.