Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31263196›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Electrophysiological correlates of the processing of different self-aspects of handwritten names.

Reiko Sawada, Motomi Toichi, Nobuo Masataka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Reiko SawadaGraduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 53 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. sawada.reiko.3z@kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Motomi ToichiGraduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 53 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Nobuo MasatakaPrimate Research Institute, Kyoto University, 41-2 Kanrin, Inuyama, Aichi, 484-8506, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ElectroencephalographyAdultBrainEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleNamesPhotic StimulationSelf ConceptYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31263196
PMCPMC6602963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.