scholarly journals Comparison of MEG and BOLD Signals in a Visual-Tactile Discrimination Task

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Braun Christoph
Author(s):  
Andy Anand Gajadhar ◽  
Renan Cipriano Moioli ◽  
Bianca Karla Amorim Sousa de Melo ◽  
Ana Carolina Bione Kunicki ◽  
Andre Salles Cunha Peres ◽  
...  

MethodsX ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 100852
Author(s):  
André Perrotta ◽  
Carla Pais-Vieira ◽  
Mehrab K. Allahdad ◽  
Estela Bicho ◽  
Miguel Pais-Vieira

NeuroImage ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. S412
Author(s):  
Y.J. Liu ◽  
J.-H. Gao ◽  
M. Liotti ◽  
Y. Pu ◽  
P.T. Fox

1965 ◽  
Vol 20 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1057-1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine V. Houck ◽  
D. Bruce Gardner ◽  
Donna Ruhl

Three groups of children were compared for performance in a tactile discrimination task. Group A had received auditory pretraining; Group V had received visual pretraining; Group C received only familiarization with the room and apparatus. The basis of discrimination in all three modalities was “one” vs “two.” Both visual and auditory pretraining facilitated performance in the tactile task. Visual pretraining was more effective than auditory, in its facilitating effects on tactile discrimination. Findings ate not fully accounted for under the heading of learning set, suggesting the need for a more comprehensive theory of sensory integration. Problems in providing an adequate control experience with the apparatus without transfer of learning to the final task for Group C and problems of comparability of tasks in different modalities are discussed.


Author(s):  
Ashikha Arun ◽  
Prarthana Kalmath ◽  
Millena Sivakumar

Research in the fields of psychology and neuroscience often rely on tasks that participants perform to fulfill the requirements of a study. These tasks are administered with either feedback, partial feedback, or no feedback given to the participant. The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast the impact of feedback vs. no feedback on a tactile discrimination task.  The goal of providing feedback should, in theory, be to motivate participants while performing a task without altering the results. To test this hypothesis, a group of 22 participants was instructed to take two sequential amplitude discrimination tests using the Brain Gauge; one test with feedback and one without. The results show a clear indication that when presented with feedback, participants performed better than without feedback, and it was speculated that the improvement in performance was due to an improvement in motivation, which was supported by a simple survey. The study results suggest that future research should utilize feedback as a means for motivation in participants and should investigate the effects of only positive or negative feedback as well as how feedback would affect scores and motivation levels during long-term experiments.


2010 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 300-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Wiest ◽  
Eric Thomson ◽  
Janaina Pantoja ◽  
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis

In freely moving rats that are actively performing a discrimination task, single-unit responses in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) are strikingly different from responses to comparable tactile stimuli in immobile rats. For example, in the active discrimination context prestimulus response modulations are common, responses are longer in duration and more likely to be inhibited. To determine whether these differences emerge as rats learned a whisker-dependent discrimination task, we recorded single-unit S1 activity while rats learned to discriminate aperture-widths using their whiskers. Even before discrimination training began, S1 responses in freely moving rats showed many of the signatures of active responses, such as increased duration of response and prestimulus response modulations. As rats subsequently learned the discrimination task, single unit responses changed: more cortical units responded to the stimuli, neuronal sensory responses grew in duration, and individual neurons better predicted aperture-width. In summary, the operant behavioral context changes S1 tactile responses even in the absence of tactile discrimination, whereas subsequent width discrimination learning refines the S1 representation of aperture-width.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document