Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26952050›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2016

Temporal structure of human magnetic evoked fields.

David P Crewther, Alyse Brown, Laila Hugrass

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David P CrewtherCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology, 1 Alfred St, Hawthorn, Melbourne, 3122, Australia. dcrewther@swin.edu.au.
Alyse BrownCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology, 1 Alfred St, Hawthorn, Melbourne, 3122, Australia.
Laila HugrassCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology, 1 Alfred St, Hawthorn, Melbourne, 3122, Australia.
Swinburne University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nonlinear analysis of the multifocal cortical visual evoked potential has allowed the identification of neural generation of higher-order nonlinear components by magnocellular and parvocellular neural streams. However, the location of individual brain sources that make such contributions to these evoked responses has not been studied. Thus, an m-sequence pseudorandom stimulus system was developed for use in magnetoencephalographic (MEG) studies. Five normal young adults were recorded using an Elekta TRIUX MEG with 306 sensors. Visual stimuli comprised a nine-patch dartboard stimulus, and each patch fluctuated between two luminance levels with separate recordings carried out at low (24 %) and high (96 %) temporal contrast. Sensor-space analysis of MEG evoked fields identified components of the first- and second-order Wiener kernel decomposition that showed qualitative similarity with EEG-based cortical VEP recordings. The first slice of the second-order response (K2.1) was already saturated at 24 % contrast, while the major waveform of the second slice of the second-order response (K2.2) grew strongly with contrast, consistent with properties of the magnocellular and parvocellular neurons. Minimum norm estimates of cortical source localization showed almost simultaneous activation of V1 and MT+ activations with latencies only a little greater that those reported for first neural spikes in primate single cell studies. Time-frequency analysis of the kernel responses from five minimum norm estimate scout sources shows contributions from higher-frequency bands for the first compared with the second slice response, consistent with the proposed neural sources. In support of this magno/parvo break-up, the onset latencies of the K2.2 responses were delayed by approximately 30 ms compared with K2.1 responses.

Indexed as

AdultCerebral CortexEvoked Potentials, VisualGeniculate BodiesHumansMagnetoencephalographyNonlinear DynamicsVisual PerceptionYoung AdultLatencyMagnocellularMEGMT+NonlinearityParvocellular

Identifiers

PMID26952050
OpenAlexW2296205295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.