1995
DOI: 10.1007/bf01199778
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mapping event-related brain potential microstates to sentence endings

Abstract: We analyzed topography and strength of 20 channel event-related potential maps to sentence endings differing in correctness, verbal vs. nonverbal surface form, priming, and repetition count. Seventeen healthy subjects silently read correct and incorrect versions of simple sentences with predictable color endings, and of more complex sentences with predictable composite word endings. Color endings appeared in verbal and nonverbal form. Measures of map topography (centroids of the positive and negative areas of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
70
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 104 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
7
70
1
Order By: Relevance
“…To statistically assess the validity of the microstate results, we applied a fitting procedure based on the calculation of the spatial correlation between single-subject ERPs and template maps (47,49). For each subject and condition, the amount of time characterized by each template was obtained in a specific time window of interest.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To statistically assess the validity of the microstate results, we applied a fitting procedure based on the calculation of the spatial correlation between single-subject ERPs and template maps (47,49). For each subject and condition, the amount of time characterized by each template was obtained in a specific time window of interest.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This clustering procedure identifies the topographies (ie maps) dominating the group-averaged AEPs across populations/ conditions. The pattern observed at the group-average level was then statistically assessed at the individual participant level using a fitting procedure based on spatial correlation (Brandeis et al, 1995; see also Murray et al, 2006, for a recent publication of formulae), yielding a measure of map presence. These values are then submitted to ANOVA, revealing whether and when different maps explain CGI and PANSS scales: S, severity; I, improvement; P, positive; N, negative; G, general psychopathology; T, total score.…”
Section: Eeg Recordings and Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pattern of maps observed in the group-averaged data were statistically tested by comparing each of these maps with the moment-by-moment scalp topography of individual subjects' VEPs from each condition. Each time point of each VEP from each subject was labeled according to the map with which it best correlated spatially [spatial correlation has been defined by Brandeis et al (1995)]. This method determines whether a given experimental condition is more often described by one map versus another and, therefore, whether different generator configurations better account for particular experimental conditions.…”
Section: Eeg Acquisition and Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%