Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35921273›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Neural correlates of perceiving and interpreting engraved prehistoric patterns as human production: Effect of archaeological expertise.

Mathilde Salagnon, Sandrine Cremona, Marc Joliot, Francesco d'Errico, Emmanuel Mellet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. From fossils to mind.Communications biology · 2023
    Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Mathilde SalagnonCNRS, CEA, IMN, GIN, UMR 5293, Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Sandrine CremonaCNRS, CEA, IMN, GIN, UMR 5293, Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2294-8199
Marc JoliotCNRS, CEA, IMN, GIN, UMR 5293, Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Francesco d'ErricoPACEA UMR 5199, CNRS, Université Bordeaux, Pessac, France.
Emmanuel MelletCNRS, CEA, IMN, GIN, UMR 5293, Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2676-9112
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been suggested that engraved abstract patterns dating from the Middle and Lower Palaeolithic served as means of representation and communication. Identifying the brain regions involved in visual processing of these engravings can provide insights into their function. In this study, brain activity was measured during perception of the earliest known Palaeolithic engraved patterns and compared to natural patterns mimicking human-made engravings. Participants were asked to categorise marks as being intentionally made by humans or due to natural processes (e.g. erosion, root etching). To simulate the putative familiarity of our ancestors with the marks, the responses of expert archaeologists and control participants were compared, allowing characterisation of the effect of previous knowledge on both behaviour and brain activity in perception of the marks. Besides a set of regions common to both groups and involved in visual analysis and decision-making, the experts exhibited greater activity in the inferior part of the lateral occipital cortex, ventral occipitotemporal cortex, and medial thalamic regions. These results are consistent with those reported in visual expertise studies, and confirm the importance of the integrative visual areas in the perception of the earliest abstract engravings. The attribution of a natural rather than human origin to the marks elicited greater activity in the salience network in both groups, reflecting the uncertainty and ambiguity in the perception of, and decision-making for, natural patterns. The activation of the salience network might also be related to the process at work in the attribution of an intention to the marks. The primary visual area was not specifically involved in the visual processing of engravings, which argued against its central role in the emergence of engraving production.

Indexed as

Engraving and EngravingsOccipital LobeArchaeologyBrain MappingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRecognition, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID35921273
PMCPMC9348741
OpenAlexW4289638357

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.