ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2023
Specificity in the processing of a subject's own name.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual and Interoceptive EEG Signatures Reveal the Interaction Between Facial and Creator Identities in Self-Processing.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Enhanced Neural Responses to Self-Name Stimuli Relative to Tone and Reversed Speech Deviants in the Auditory Oddball Paradigm.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Hemodynamic responses to emotional auditory stimuli in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: an fNIRS study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Cerebellum's Contribution to Attention, Executive Functions and Timing: Psychophysiological Evidence from Event-Related Potentials.Brain sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Subject's own name (SON) is widely used in both daily life and the clinic. Event-related potential (ERP)-based studies have previously detected several ERP components related to SON processing; however, as most of these studies used SON as a deviant stimulus, it was not possible to determine whether these components were SON-specific. To identify SON-specific ERP components, we adopted a passive listening task with EEG data recording involving 25 subjects. The auditory stimuli were a SON, a friend's name (FN), an unfamiliar name (UN) selected from other subjects' names and seven different unfamiliar names (DUNs). The experimental settings included Equal-probabilistic, Frequent-SON, Frequent-FN and Frequent-UN conditions. The results showed that SON consistently evoked a frontocentral SON-related negativity (SRN) within 210-350 ms under all conditions, which was not detected with the other names. Meanwhile, a late positive potential evoked by SON was found to be affected by stimulus probability, showing no significant difference between the SON and the other names in the Frequent-SON condition, or between the SON and a FN in the Frequent-UN condition. Taken together, our findings indicated that the SRN was a SON-specific ERP component, suggesting that distinct neural mechanism underly the processing of a SON.
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.