Cited by 228Neural dynamics and brain functionEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Cognitive tasks augment gamma EEG power

Fitzgibbon, S.P, Pope, K.J, Mackenzie, L, Clark, C.R, Willoughby, J.O·2004·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective Gamma EEG oscillations are low amplitude rhythms in the 30-100 Hz range that correlate with cognitive task execution. They are usually reported using time-locked averaging of EEG during repetitive tasks. We tested the hypothesis that continuous gamma EEG would be measurable during mental tasks. Methods We investigated sustained human gamma EEG oscillations induced by 8 cognitive tasks (Visual Checkerboard, Expectancy, Reading, Subtraction, Music, Expectancy, Word learning, Word recall, and a Video Segment) in 20 subjects using standard digital EEG recording and power spectral analysis. Results All of the cognitive tasks augmented gamma power relative to a control condition (eyes open watching a blank computer screen). This enhancement was statistically significant at more than one scalp site for all tasks except checkerboard. The Expectancy, Learning, Reading and Subtraction tasks expressed the most impressive gamma response, up to 5 fold above the control condition and there was some task-related specificity of the distribution of increased gamma power, especially in posterior cortex with visual tasks. Conclusions Widespread gamma activation of cortical EEG can easily be demonstrated during mental activity. Significance These results establish the feasibility of measuring high frequency EEG rhythms with trans-cranial recordings, demonstrate that sustained gamma EEG activity correlates with mentation, and provides evidence consistent with the temporal binding model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.03.009

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 33 · Cited by 228

Authors
Fitzgibbon, S. P., Pope, K. J., Mackenzie, L., Clark, C. R., & Willoughby, J. O.
Affiliations
Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Willoughby, J.O
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-08
Volume
115
Issue
8
Pages
1802-1809
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047850237
Cited by
228
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
gamma oscillations, cognitive tasks, high-frequency EEG, mental activity, expectancy, reading, word learning, word recall, posterior cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Photic Stimulation, Reading, Mental Recall, Statistics, Nonparametric

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