ArticleNeuroImage2023
Optimal parameters for rapid (invisible) frequency tagging using MEG.
Article in NeuroImage, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetoencephalography in human neuroscience research: planning, piloting, implementation and quality assurance.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- High-gamma frequency-tagged magnetoencephalography reveals time-resolved task-related functional coupling during spatial cognition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Advantages and artifacts of high-speed OLED monitors for vision, eye-tracking, and EEG research.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Hierarchical brain dynamics supporting visual perceptual transitions.Science advances · 2026Article
- Dynamic competition between bottom-up saliency and top-down goals in early visual cortex.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Guided visual search is associated with target boosting and distractor suppression in early visual cortex.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Dissociating external and internal attentional selection.iScience · 2025Article
- Using Rapid Invisible Frequency Tagging (RIFT) to Probe the Neural Interaction Between Representations of Speech Planning and Comprehension.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Challenges and Approaches in the Study of Neural Entrainment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Review
- Perceptual foundation and extension to phase tagging for rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT).Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Frequency tagging of spatial attention using periliminal flickers.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- A collaborative guide to Rapid Invisible Frequency Tagging (RIFT): Methods, insights, and recommendations.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Frequency tagging has been demonstrated to be a useful tool for identifying representational-specific neuronal activity in the auditory and visual domains. However, the slow flicker (<30 Hz) applied in conventional frequency tagging studies is highly visible and might entrain endogenous neuronal oscillations. Hence, stimulation at faster frequencies that is much less visible and does not interfere with endogenous brain oscillatory activity is a promising new tool. In this study, we set out to examine the optimal stimulation parameters of rapid frequency tagging (RFT/RIFT) with magnetoencephalography (MEG) by quantifying the effects of stimulation frequency, size and position of the flickering patch. Rapid frequency tagging using flickers above 50 Hz results in almost invisible stimulation which does not interfere with slower endogenous oscillations; however, the signal is weaker as compared to tagging at slower frequencies so certainty over the optimal parameters of stimulation delivery are crucial. The here presented results examining the frequency range between 60 Hz and 96 Hz suggest that RFT induces brain responses with decreasing strength up to about 84 Hz. In addition, even at the smallest flicker patch (2°) focally presented RFT induces a significant and measurable oscillatory brain signal (steady state visual evoked potential/field, SSVEP/F) at the stimulation frequency (66 Hz); however, the elicited response increases with patch size. While focal RFT presentation elicits the strongest response, off-centre presentations do generally mainly elicit a measureable response if presented below the horizontal midline. Importantly, the results also revealed considerable individual differences in the neuronal responses to RFT stimulation. Finally, we discuss the comparison of oscillatory measures (coherence and power) and sensor types (planar gradiometers and magnetometers) in order to achieve optimal outcomes. Based on our extensive findings we set forward concrete recommendations for using rapid frequency tagging in human cognitive neuroscience investigations.
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.