Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29974147›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2018

Coherence in general and personal semantic knowledge: functional differences of the posterior and centro-parietal N400 ERP component.

Benjamin Schöne, Moritz Köster, Thomas Gruber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Benjamin SchöneInstitute of Psychology, Osnabrück University, Seminarstraße 20, 49074, Osnabrück, Germany. benjamin.schoene@uni-osnabrueck.de.
Moritz KösterInstitute of Psychology, Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas GruberInstitute of Psychology, Osnabrück University, Seminarstraße 20, 49074, Osnabrück, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing body of scientific literature investigated the difference between general and personal semantic knowledge. In contrast to general world knowledge, personal semantics comprises highly individual knowledge about oneself. The present study aimed to differentiate processes of integration into personal as opposed to general semantic knowledge. For that purpose, participants were presented with pictures of themselves (Self-condition) or unknown persons (Other-condition) superimposed on a congruent or incongruent background. We hypothesized that self-referential processing is based on automatic retrieval of personal information as opposed to the processing of unknown persons, which requires voluntary, i.e., strategic, attention demanding processing. The topography of the N400 effect varied as a function of the type of semantic knowledge. We found a centro-parietal N400 effect within the Self-condition and a posterior effect within the Other-condition. The voluntary integration of facial expressions of unknown persons within the Other-condition was, furthermore, indexed by an N170 effect. The unresolved tension in personal semantics was reflected by the N500. Our study thus provides new impulses for interpretation of the N400's functional properties and extends our knowledge about the N500. Implications for the functional properties of the self as an organizational structure are discussed.

Indexed as

KnowledgeSelf ConceptSemanticsAdolescentAdultAnalysis of VarianceAttentionBrain MappingCerebral CortexElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleMemoryPhotic StimulationEvent-related potentialsGeneral semanticsN170N400N500Personal semantics

Identifiers

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.