↓ Skip to main content

A Large N400 but No BOLD Effect – Comparing Source Activations of Semantic Priming in Simultaneous EEG-fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
A Large N400 but No BOLD Effect – Comparing Source Activations of Semantic Priming in Simultaneous EEG-fMRI
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Geukes, René J. Huster, Andreas Wollbrink, Markus Junghöfer, Pienie Zwitserlood, Christian Dobel

Abstract

Numerous studies have reported neurophysiological effects of semantic priming in electroencephalography (EEG) and in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Because of differing methodological constraints, the comparability of the observed effects remains unclear. To directly compare EEG and fMRI effects and neural sources of semantic priming, we conducted a semantic word-picture priming experiment while measuring EEG and fMRI simultaneously. The visually presented primes were pseudowords, words unrelated to the target, semantically related words and the identical names of the target. Distributed source analysis of the event-related potentials (ERPs) successfully revealed a large effect of semantic prime-target relatedness (the N400 effect), which was driven by activations in a left-temporal source region. However, no significantly differing activations between priming conditions were found in the fMRI data. Our results support the notion that, for joint interpretations of existing EEG and fMRI studies of semantic priming, we need to fully appreciate the respective methodological limitations. Second, they show that simultaneous EEG-fMRI, including ERP source localization, is a feasible and promising methodological advancement for the investigation of higher-cognitive processes. Third, they substantiate the finding that, compared to fMRI, ERPs are often more sensitive to subtle cognitive effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 98 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Professor 7 7%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 26%
Neuroscience 15 14%
Engineering 9 8%
Linguistics 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 33 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,798,491
of 25,850,376 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#49,412
of 225,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,108
of 321,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,123
of 5,451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,850,376 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 225,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 321,239 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.