Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39917258›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2024

Identifying P100 and N170 as electrophysiological markers for conscious and unconscious processing of emotional facial expressions.

Lennard Herzberg, Julia Schräder, Han-Gue Jo, Ute Habel, Lisa Wagels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Lennard HerzbergDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Julia SchräderDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Han-Gue JoDepartment of AI Convergence, College of Computer and Software, Kunsan National University, Gunsan, Republic of Korea.
Ute HabelDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Lisa WagelsDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Everyday life requires correct processing of emotions constantly, partly occurring unconsciously. This study aims to clarify the effect of emotion perception on different event-related potentials (ERP; P100, N170). The P100 and N170 are tested for their suitability as electrophysiological markers in unconscious processing. Methods: Using a modified backward masking paradigm, 52 healthy participants evaluated emotional facial expressions (happy, sad, or neutral) during EEG recording. While varying primer presentation time (16.7 ms for unconscious; 150 ms for conscious perception), either congruent or incongruent primer / target emotions were displayed. Results: The N170 was significantly larger in trials with conscious compared to unconscious primer presentation, while the P100 showed opposite results displaying higher amplitudes in unconscious versus conscious trials. The N170 amplitude was modulated by emotion. Discussion: Both P100 and N170 were modulated by stimulus presentation time, demonstrating the suitability as potential biomarkers and for systematic research on conscious and unconscious face processing.

Indexed as

emotion processingevent-related potentialsN170P100unconsciousness

Identifiers

PMID39917258
PMCPMC11798883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.