ArticleCommunications biology2022
Conditional generative adversarial networks applied to EEG data can inform about the inter-relation of antagonistic behaviors on a neural level.
Article in Communications biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive science theory-driven pharmacology elucidates the neurobiological basis of perception-motor integration.Communications biology · 2022Trial
- Generative AI as a transformational logic for cognitive neuroscience.Communications biology · 2026Review
- Integrating metacognitive mechanisms optimizes EEG generative models via hierarchical regularization.iScience · 2026Article
- Neural and behavioral evidence for oxytocin's facilitatory effects on learning in volatile and stable environments.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Evidence for independent representational contents in inhibitory control subprocesses associated with frontoparietal cortices.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- Conditional generative adversarial networks applied to EEG data can inform about the inter-relation of antagonistic behaviors on a neural level.Communications biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Goal-directed actions frequently require a balance between antagonistic processes (e.g., executing and inhibiting a response), often showing an interdependency concerning what constitutes goal-directed behavior. While an inter-dependency of antagonistic actions is well described at a behavioral level, a possible inter-dependency of underlying processes at a neuronal level is still enigmatic. However, if there is an interdependency, it should be possible to predict the neurophysiological processes underlying inhibitory control based on the neural processes underlying speeded automatic responses. Based on that rationale, we applied artificial intelligence and source localization methods to human EEG recordings from N = 255 participants undergoing a response inhibition experiment (Go/Nogo task). We show that the amplitude and timing of scalp potentials and their functional neuroanatomical sources during inhibitory control can be inferred by conditional generative adversarial networks (cGANs) using neurophysiological data recorded during response execution. We provide insights into possible limitations in the use of cGANs to delineate the interdependency of antagonistic actions on a neurophysiological level. Nevertheless, artificial intelligence methods can provide information about interdependencies between opposing cognitive processes on a neurophysiological level with relevance for cognitive theory.
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.