ArticleHuman brain mapping2023
An event-based magnetoencephalography study of simulated driving: Establishing a novel paradigm to probe the dynamic interplay of executive and motor function.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel paradigm for identifying eye-tracking metrics associated with cognitive control during driving through MEG neuroimaging.Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour · 2026Article
- Beyond sensitivity: what are the enabling opportunities of OPM-MEG?Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Article
- Neural signatures of engagement in driving: comparing active control and passive observation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
- An event-based magnetoencephalography study of simulated driving: Establishing a novel paradigm to probe the dynamic interplay of executive and motor function.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
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
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is particularly well-suited to the study of human motor cortex oscillatory rhythms and motor control. However, the motor tasks studied to date are largely overly simplistic. This study describes a new approach: a novel event-based simulated drive made operational via MEG compatible driving simulator hardware, paired with differential beamformer methods to characterize the neural correlates of realistic, complex motor activity. We scanned 23 healthy individuals aged 16-23 years (mean age = 19.5, SD = 2.5; 18 males and 5 females, all right-handed) who completed a custom-built repeated trials driving scenario. MEG data were recorded with a 275-channel CTF, and a volumetric magnetic resonance imaging scan was used for MEG source localization. To validate this paradigm, we hypothesized that pedal-use would elicit expected modulation of primary motor responses beta-event-related desynchronization (B-ERD) and movement-related gamma synchrony (MRGS). To confirm the added utility of this paradigm, we hypothesized that the driving task could also probe frontal cognitive control responses (specifically, frontal midline theta [FMT]). Three of 23 participants were removed due to excess head motion (>1.5 cm/trial), confirming feasibility. Nonparametric group analysis revealed significant regions of pedal-use related B-ERD activity (at left precentral foot area, as well as bilateral superior parietal lobe: p < .01 corrected), MRGS (at medial precentral gyrus: p < .01 corrected), and FMT band activity sustained around planned braking (at bilateral superior frontal gyrus: p < .01 corrected). This paradigm overcomes the limits of previous efforts by allowing for characterization of the neural correlates of realistic, complex motor activity in terms of brain regions, frequency bands and their dynamic temporal interplay.
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.