File:Probing the effect of hippocampal TI stimulation on behavioral function.webp
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
![File:Probing the effect of hippocampal TI stimulation on behavioral function.webp](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Probing_the_effect_of_hippocampal_TI_stimulation_on_behavioral_function.webp/487px-Probing_the_effect_of_hippocampal_TI_stimulation_on_behavioral_function.webp.png?20231227180107)
Size of this PNG preview of this WEBP file: 487 × 599 pixels. Other resolutions: 195 × 240 pixels | 390 × 480 pixels | 624 × 768 pixels | 1,058 × 1,302 pixels.
Original file (1,058 × 1,302 pixels, file size: 63 KB, MIME type: image/webp)
File information
Structured data
Captions
Captions
From the study "Non-invasive temporal interference electrical stimulation of the human hippocampus"
Summary
[edit]DescriptionProbing the effect of hippocampal TI stimulation on behavioral function.webp |
English: "a, Comparison of participants’ memory performances during recall between sham (gray) and TI 1:3 (orange) across response type (target, foil and distractor), showing higher probability of target responses, that is, face–name pairs correctly remembered during TI (GLMM, χ2(2) = 6.353, P = 0.0417; post hoc paired t-tests, two-sided, Sham–TI 1:3; Target, P = 0.0068; Foils, P = 0.1418, P = 0.3836). b, Estimated mean accuracy for sham and TI 1:3, as estimated using a mixed-effects logistic regression model for correct and incorrect responses and independent random-effect terms for ‘participant’, ‘session’ and ‘task block’, showing higher odds of correct recall during TI stimulation (logit scale; GLMM, χ2(2) = 5.857, P = 0.0155). c, Comparison of mean accuracy for target selections between recall and re-test (30 min after first recall, for items correctly remembered at recall) for sham and TI 1:3, showing that target selection was higher for TI 1:3 condition at both time points (GLMM, main effect of stimulation, χ2(1) = 7.581, P = 0.006). d, Same as a but for median reaction time (RT), showing no differences between stimulation conditions. e, Same as b but for median RT for target responses, showing no significant difference between recall and re-test or stimulation conditions. f, Same as c but for mean confidence ratings, which were similar between stimulation conditions. g, Blinding effectiveness. Shown are median weighted scores and 95% confidence intervals for TI 1:3 and sham conditions. Participants were asked at four time points during each session (indicated by a Q on the x axis) whether they thought they had stimulation and how confident they were (1 is not confident at all; 10 is extremely confident). The two questions were combined into a weighted score, whereby a ‘yes’ answer was assigned a +1 value and ‘no’ answer a value of −1, which were then multiplied by the confidence rating. Thus, a positive score on the y axis indicates that participants reported having stimulation, and negative score not having stimulation. No significant effects of stimulation; for full statistics, see Supplementary Table 24. In a–f, bar or dot plots show mean and SE, and black dots show individual participant data. Asterisks indicate significant differences between stimulation conditions. For full statistics, see Supplementary Table 16. n = 21 throughout." |
Date | |
Source | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01456-8 |
Author | Authors of the study: Ines R. Violante, Ketevan Alania, Antonino M. Cassarà, Esra Neufeld, Emma Acerbo, Romain Carron, Adam Williamson, Danielle L. Kurtin, Edward Rhodes, Adam Hampshire, Niels Kuster, Edward S. Boyden, Alvaro Pascual-Leone & Nir Grossman |
Licensing
[edit]![w:en:Creative Commons](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/CC_some_rights_reserved.svg/90px-CC_some_rights_reserved.svg.png)
![attribution](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Cc-by_new_white.svg/24px-Cc-by_new_white.svg.png)
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
- You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
- Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
current | 18:01, 27 December 2023 | ![]() | 1,058 × 1,302 (63 KB) | Prototyperspective (talk | contribs) | Uploaded a work by Authors of the study: Ines R. Violante, Ketevan Alania, Antonino M. Cassarà, Esra Neufeld, Emma Acerbo, Romain Carron, Adam Williamson, Danielle L. Kurtin, Edward Rhodes, Adam Hampshire, Niels Kuster, Edward S. Boyden, Alvaro Pascual-Leone & Nir Grossman from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01456-8 with UploadWizard |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage on Commons
There are no pages that use this file.