↓ Skip to main content

Holding Biological Motion in Working Memory: An fMRI Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Holding Biological Motion in Working Memory: An fMRI Study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00251
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiqian Lu, Jian Huang, Yuji Yi, Mowei Shen, Xuchu Weng, Zaifeng Gao

Abstract

Holding biological motion (BM), the movements of animate entities, in working memory (WM) is important to our daily life activities. However, the neural substrates underlying the WM processing of BM remain largely unknown. Employing the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technique, the current study directly investigated this issue. We used point-light BM animations as the tested stimuli, and explored the neural substrates involved in encoding and retaining BM information in WM. Participants were required to remember two or four BM stimuli in a change-detection task. We first defined a set of potential brain regions devoted to the BM processing in WM in one experiment. We then conducted the second fMRI experiment, and performed time-course analysis over the pre-defined regions, which allowed us to differentiate the encoding and maintenance phases of WM. The results showed that a set of brain regions were involved in encoding BM into WM, including the middle frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, superior parietal lobule, inferior parietal lobule, superior temporal sulcus, fusiform gyrus, and middle occipital gyrus. However, only the middle frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, superior parietal lobule, and inferior parietal lobule were involved in retaining BM into WM. These results suggest that an overlapped network exists between the WM encoding and maintenance for BM; however, retaining BM in WM predominately relies on the mirror neuron system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 42%
Neuroscience 9 18%
Engineering 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 22%
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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,373,286
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,276
of 7,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,600
of 339,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#164
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 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 7,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 339,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.