ArticleNoro psikiyatri arsivi2025
Investigation of Brain Regions Responsible for The Processing of The Stimulus Novelty by Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Noro psikiyatri arsivi, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Neural Blueprint of Novelty: A Meta-Analytic Dissection of Active and Passive Novelty Processing Networks.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Novelty processing is one of the basic survival mechanisms for living organisms. Among the various types of novelty, stimulus novelty is the effect created by stimuli that are unlikely to be encountered throughout one's lifetime. However, the oddball design mostly used in studying stimulus novelty also includes an obligatory contextual novelty effect, which actually requires the presence of schemas about sensory input in the memory. In this study, we aimed to investigate the neural circuits related purely to the detection of stimulus novelty using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) by applying an experimental design that excludes any contextual novelty effect. Methods: Fifteen right-handed healthy participants were included in the study. The stimulus novelty effect was generated by the images of object-like structures that could not be named and did not correspond to a real object. These stimuli were shuffled with images of familiar objects frequently encountered in daily life. SPM12 and CONN were used for the preprocessing stages and activation analysis of fMRI data. In the analyses, the cluster formation threshold was determined as p <0.001 and the cluster level significance threshold with family-wise error (FWE) correction was set at pFWE <0.05. Results: The activity of the fusiform, middle occipital, inferior occipital and superior occipital gyri increased during the processing of the stimulus novelty, while the activity of the inferior parietal cortex and supramarginal gyrus decreased. Conclusion: With the experimental paradigm that excluded the confounding effects of contextual novelty, anatomical regions that respond specifically to stimulus novelty could be identified. Our results suggest that, while stimulus novelty intensively activates brain areas related with higher-order visual processing, the brain regions that associate sensory inputs with the schemas in the memory are less active.
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.