Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28402573›Full record

ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2017

Humor drawings evoked temporal and spectral EEG processes.

Regina W Y Wang, Hsien-Chu Kuo, Shang-Wen Chuang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Regina W Y WangDesign Perceptual Awareness Lab (D:PAL).
Hsien-Chu KuoDesign Perceptual Awareness Lab (D:PAL).
Shang-Wen ChuangDesign Perceptual Awareness Lab (D:PAL).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study aimed to explore the humor processing elicited through the manipulation of artistic drawings. Using the Comprehension-Elaboration Theory of humor as the main research background, the experiment manipulated the head portraits of celebrities based on the independent variables of facial deformation (large/small) and addition of affective features (positive/negative). A 64-channel electroencephalography was recorded in 30 participants while viewing the incongruous drawings of celebrities. The electroencephalography temporal and spectral responses were measured during the three stages of humor which included incongruity detection, incongruity comprehension and elaboration of humor. Analysis of event-related potentials indicated that for humorous vs non-humorous drawings, facial deformation and the addition of affective features significantly affected the degree of humor elicited, specifically: large > small deformation; negative > positive affective features. The N170, N270, N400, N600-800 and N900-1200 components showed significant differences, particularly in the right prefrontal and frontal regions. Analysis of event-related spectral perturbation showed significant differences in the theta band evoked in the anterior cingulate cortex, parietal region and posterior cingulate cortex; and in the alpha and beta bands in the motor areas. These regions are involved in emotional processing, memory retrieval, and laughter and feelings of amusement induced by elaboration of the situation.

Indexed as

Wit and Humor as TopicAdultBrain WavesCaricatures as TopicCerebral CortexEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMalePattern Recognition, VisualYoung AdultComprehension–Elaboration Theoryevent-related potential (ERP)event-related spectral perturbation (ERSP)humorous drawingIncongruity Resolution Theory

Identifiers

PMID28402573
PMCPMC5597898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.