Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38236744›Full record

ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2024

Neural correlates tracking different aspects of the emerging representation of novel visual categories.

Sára Jellinek, József Fiser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sára JellinekDepartment of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Quellenstraße 51-55, 1100 Vienna, Austria.
József FiserDepartment of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Quellenstraße 51-55, 1100 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics ONRG-NICOP-N62909-19-1-2029National Science Foundation PHY-1748958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current studies investigating electroencephalogram correlates associated with categorization of sensory stimuli (P300 event-related potential, alpha event-related desynchronization, theta event-related synchronization) typically use an oddball paradigm with few, familiar, highly distinct stimuli providing limited insight about the aspects of categorization (e.g. difficulty, membership, uncertainty) that the correlates are linked to. Using a more complex task, we investigated whether such more specific links could be established between correlates and learning and how these links change during the emergence of new categories. In our study, participants learned to categorize novel stimuli varying continuously on multiple integral feature dimensions, while electroencephalogram was recorded from the beginning of the learning process. While there was no significant P300 event-related potential modulation, both alpha event-related desynchronization and theta event-related synchronization followed a characteristic trajectory in proportion with the gradual acquisition of the two categories. Moreover, the two correlates were modulated by different aspects of categorization, alpha event-related desynchronization by the difficulty of the task, whereas the magnitude of theta -related synchronization by the identity and possibly the strength of category membership. Thus, neural signals commonly related to categorization are appropriate for tracking both the dynamic emergence of internal representation of categories, and different meaningful aspects of the categorization process.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyEvent-Related Potentials, P300Cortical SynchronizationHumansLearningalpha ERDcategorizationlearningP300 ERPtheta ERS

Identifiers

PMID38236744
PMCPMC10839850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.