ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Dissociating stimulus and task effects on neural oscillations during n-back tasks.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: N-back tasks are widely used to assess working memory functioning, yet different methodological approaches between tasks and across laboratories can yield distinct neural signatures. While working memory-related event-related potentials (ERPs) have been extensively studied, it remains unclear how task parameters influence the neural oscillatory activity underlying working memory functioning. Methods: We conducted time-frequency analyses on EEG data from 36 participants performing nine different variants of the n-back task that systematically varied in stimulus type (words, pictures, colors) and task structure (timing, response, and feedback parameters). We examined power modulations in the theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), and beta (12-30 Hz) frequency bands to determine which task parameters drive changes in specific neural oscillations. Results: Results revealed a functional double dissociation: frontal theta event-related synchronization was selectively sensitive to stimulus type, with 'pictures' eliciting greater theta power than words and colors in the task variant with the shortest total trial duration and a requirement to respond to all stimuli, but not in other task variants. In contrast, centro-parietal alpha event-related desynchronization was driven predominantly by task structure rather than stimulus content, showing reduced alpha suppression in the task variant characterized by the longest inter-trial interval and immediate accuracy feedback. Beta oscillations showed no systematic modulation at the Region of Interest level. Cluster-based permutation analyses further confirmed the early temporal specificity of both theta and alpha effects. Discussion: We conclude that theta oscillations reflect stimulus-driven encoding demands, while alpha desynchronization tracks the structural and temporal demands of the task context (modulating the need for active neural inhibition of task-irrelevant information). These findings have direct implications for standardizing n-back protocols: stimulus type and task structure exert their influence on fundamentally different oscillatory systems and must be carefully controlled depending on which neural biomarker is targeted.
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.