1,720,979 research outputs found
Are the neural correlates of subitizing and estimation dissociable? An fNIRS investigation
No full text
Altered social attention in anorexia nervosa during real social interaction
Full text linkThe capacity to devote attentional resources in response to body-related signals provided by others is still largely unexplored in individuals with Anorexia Nervosa (AN). Here, we tested this capacity through a novel paradigm that mimics a social interaction with a real partner. Healthy individuals (Experiment 1) and individuals with AN (Experiment 2) completed a task with another person which consisted in performing, alternatively, rapid aiming movements to lateralised targets. Generally, this task leads to a form of Inhibition of Return (IOR), which consists of longer reaction times when an individual has to respond to a location previously searched by either himself (individual IOR) or by the partner (social IOR) as compared to previously unexplored locations. IOR is considered as an important attentional mechanism that promotes an effective exploration of the environment during social interaction. Here, healthy individuals displayed both individual and social IOR that were both reliable and of the same magnitude. Individuals with AN displayed a non-significant individual IOR but a reliable social IOR that was also significantly stronger than individual IOR. These results suggest the presence of a reduced sensitivity in processing body-related stimuli conveyed by oneself in individuals with AN which is reflected in action-based attentional processes
Motion artifacts in functional near-infrared spectroscopy: A comparison of motion correction techniques applied to real cognitive data
Full text linkMotion artifacts are a significant source of noise in many functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) experiments. Despite this, there is no well-established method for their removal. Instead, functional trials of fNIRS data containing a motion artifact are often rejected completely. However, in most experimental circumstances the number of trials is limited, and multiple motion artifacts are common, particularly in challenging populations. Many methods have been proposed recently to correct for motion artifacts, including principle component analysis, spline interpolation, Kalman filtering, wavelet filtering and correlation-based signal improvement. The performance of different techniques has been often compared in simulations, but only rarely has it been assessed on real functional data. Here, we compare the performance of these motion correction techniques on real functional data acquired during a cognitive task, which required the participant to speak aloud, leading to a low-frequency, low-amplitude motion artifact that is correlated with the hemodynamic response. To compare the efficacy of these methods, objective metrics related to the physiology of the hemodynamic response have been derived. Our results show that it is always better to correct for motion artifacts than reject trials, and that wavelet filtering is the most effective approach to correcting this type of artifact, reducing the area under the curve where the artifact is present in 93% of the cases. Our results therefore support previous studies that have shown wavelet filtering to be the most promising and powerful technique for the correction of motion artifacts in fNIRS data. The analyses performed here can serve as a guide for others to objectively test the impact of different motion correction algorithms and therefore select the most appropriate for the analysis of their own fNIRS experiment
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
