Cited by 186Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Overt verbal responding during fMRI scanning: empirical investigations of problems and potential solutions

Barch, Deanna M., Sabb, Fred W., Carter, Cameron S., Braver, Todd S., Noll, Douglas C., Cohen, Jonathan D.·1999·NeuroImage

Abstract

This paper presents a pair of studies designed to empirically explore the severity of potential artifacts associated with overt verbal responding during fMRI scanning and to examine several different solutions to these artifacts. In Study One, we compared susceptibility artifacts, signal-to-noise ratios, and activation patterns when overt versus covert verbal responses were elicited during fMRI scanning, using both individual and group analyses. The results indicated that different patterns of brain activation were elicited during covert as compared to overt verbal responses. This suggests that covert responses cannot be used as a simple substitute for overt verbal responses. Further, the results suggested that the use of overt verbal responses during fMRI scanning can produce interpretable results if: (1) the primary comparison is between two conditions that both use overt verbal responses, and (2) analyses are conducted on pooled group data rather than individual participant data. In Study Two, we evaluated the feasibility and validity of a method for acquiring participants' overt responses during fMRI scanning. The results indicated that our method was very accurate in acquiring the content of participant's responses. Further, inspection of the responses demonstrated that participants do not always comply with task instructions and highlighted the importance of obtaining behavioral performance measures during fMRI scanning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/nimg.1999.0500

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barch, D. M., Sabb, F. W., Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Noll, D. C., & Cohen, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-12
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
642-657
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161118398
Cited by
186
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
susceptibility artifacts, signal-to-noise ratio, brain activation patterns, task compliance
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Verbal Behavior, Artifacts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review