ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Neuroaesthetic exploration on the cognitive processing behind repeating graphics.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Repeating graphics are common research objects in modern design education. However, we do not exactly know the attentional processes underlying graphic artifacts consisting of repeating rhythms. In this experiment, the event-related potential, a neuroscientific measure, was used to study the neural correlates of repeating graphics within graded orderliness. We simulated the competitive identification process of people recognizing artifacts with graded repeating rhythms from a scattered natural environment with the oddball paradigm. In the earlier attentional processing related to the P2 component around the Fz electrode within the 150-250 ms range, a middle-grade repeating rhythm (Target 1) did not show a difference from a high-grade repeating rhythm (Target 2). However, in the later cognitive processes related to the P3b component around the Pz electrode within the 300-450 ms range, Target 1 had longer peak latency than Target 2, based on similar waveforms. Thus, we may suppose that the arrangement of the repeating graphics did not influence the earlier attentional processing but affected the later cognitive part, such as the categorization task in the oddball paradigm. Furthermore, as evidenced by the standard deviation wave across the trials, we suggest that the growing standard deviation value might represent the gradual loss of attentional focus to the task after the stimulus onset and that the zero-growth level may represent similar brain activity between trials.
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.