ArticlePhysiological reports2022
Stimulus-dependent deliberation process in left- and right-handers obtained via current source density analysis.
Article in Physiological reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stimulus-dependent deliberation process in left- and right-handers obtained via current source density analysis.Physiological reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the activity patterns of young, healthy right- (RH, n = 25) and left-handed (LH, n = 20) subjects in high-density electroencephalograpic (EEG) recordings during a deliberation task. The deliberation task consisted of pressing one of two keys depending on a color-word Stroop task (Stroop, 1935) presented on a computer screen. Depending on the color shown and the meaning of the color word, participants responded with the index finger of the dominant or non-dominant hand. This leads to different activities in the hemispheres depending on the acting hand and on subject's handedness. Presenting the word "black" in black color, subjects were not to press any key (no-go-trial). Prior to this, subjects were tested for simple motor tasks, during which they were informed about the motor action to be performed. The temporal activity patterns obtained from RH and LH were very similar in shape and constituent components. The comparison of the three types of trials lead to the assumption that the deliberation process is based on a two-step decision: The first decision was characterized by the choice between move (match-trials, mismatch-trials) or not to move (no-go-trials). The second decision resulted in the final judgment of which index finger has to be used. The latter decision, in particular, can be tracked via the local spread of activity over the scalp. Our hypothesis is based on a comparison of activities and locations of RH and LH and yields some insights about processing a two-step decision in a deliberation task.
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.