ArticleScientific reports2019
Electrophysiological correlates of the processing of different self-aspects of handwritten names.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual and Interoceptive EEG Signatures Reveal the Interaction Between Facial and Creator Identities in Self-Processing.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Behavioural and ERP evidence of the self-advantage of online self-relevant information.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans recognize the self in various visual domains, such as faces, names, and motions, as well as in products, such as handwritten letters. Previous studies have indicated that these various domains of self are represented differently in the brain, i.e., domain-specific self-representation. However, it remains unclear whether these differences in brain activation are due to the processing of different visual features or to differential self-processing among the domains, because the studies used different types of visual stimuli. The present study evaluated event-related potentials (ERPs) while participants were presented with their own and others' names generated by the participants themselves or someone else. Therefore, the visual stimuli included two domains of self-related information, name and motor agent, but only one type of stimulus (handwritten names). The ERP results show that the amplitudes of the P250 component (250-330 ms) in the posterior regions were smaller for self-generated handwritten names than for non-self-generated handwritten names. The results also show that the amplitudes of the P300 component (350-500 ms) were larger for the self-name than for the non-self-name. These results suggest domain-specific processing of self-related information regarding the name and agent of handwritten stimuli.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.