Cited by 529Neural dynamics and brain functionVisual perception and processing mechanismsTactile and Sensory Interactions

Baseline brain activity fluctuations predict somatosensory perception in humans

Open access
Boly, M., Balteau, E., Schnakers, C., Degueldre, C., Moonen, G., Luxen, A., Phillips, C., Peigneux, P. +2 more·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

In perceptual experiments, within-individual fluctuations in perception are observed across multiple presentations of the same stimuli, a phenomenon that remains only partially understood. Here, by means of thulium-yttrium/aluminum-garnet laser and event-related functional MRI, we tested whether variability in perception of identical stimuli relates to differences in prestimulus, baseline brain activity. Results indicate a positive relationship between conscious perception of low-intensity somatosensory stimuli and immediately preceding levels of baseline activity in medial thalamus and the lateral frontoparietal network, respectively, which are thought to relate to vigilance and "external monitoring." Conversely, there was a negative correlation between subsequent reporting of conscious perception and baseline activity in a set of regions encompassing posterior cingulate/precuneus and temporoparietal cortices, possibly relating to introspection and self-oriented processes. At nociceptive levels of stimulation, pain-intensity ratings positively correlated with baseline fluctuations in anterior cingulate cortex in an area known to be involved in the affective dimension of pain. These results suggest that baseline brain-activity fluctuations may profoundly modify our conscious perception of the external world.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0611404104

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Spontaneous variations in the human waking state markedly affect cortical responses and perceptual abilities.

    “Recently, the marked impact of apparent spontaneous variations in the human waking state on both cortical responses and perceptual abilities has begun to be more widely appreciated”

    From Waking state: rapid variations modulate neural and behavioral responses (2015) · cites this paper as Boly et al., 2007

  • Variations in spontaneous activity, as inferred from fMRI and/or ECoG recordings, in awake humans have strong influences on task performance.

    “Variations in spontaneous activity, as inferred from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and/or electrocorticogram (ECoG) recordings, in awake humans has strong influences on task performance (Boly et al., 2007; Hesselmann et al., 2008a).”

    From Waking state: rapid variations modulate neural and behavioral responses (2015) · cites this paper as Boly et al., 2007

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [33]Cordes D, Haughton VM, Arfanakis K, Carew JD, Turski PA, Moritz CH, Quigley MA, Meyerand ME. Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:1326–1333. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [41]World Medical Association. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277:925–926. [Google Scholar]
  3. [43]Friston K, Ashburner J, Frith C, Poline JB, Heather J, Frackowiak RSJ. Hum Brain Mapp. 1995;2:165–189. [Google Scholar]
  4. [44]Penny W, Holmes A. In: Human Brain Function. Frackowiak R, Friston K, Frith C, Dolan R, Price C, Zeki S, Ashburner J, Penny W, editors. London: Academic; 2003. p. 1114. [Google Scholar]
  5. [45]Friston KJ. In: Human Brain Function. Frackowiak R, Friston K, Frith C, Dolan R, Price C, Zeki S, Ashburner J, Penny W, editors. London: Academic; 2003. pp. 599–601. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boly, M., Balteau, E., Schnakers, C., Degueldre, C., Moonen, G., Luxen, A., Phillips, C., Peigneux, P., Maquet, P., & Laureys, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Liège (BE)
  • Coma Science Group, Cyclotron Research Center, B30, Allée du 6 Août, Sart Tilman, University of Liège, B-4000 Liège, Belgium;
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (BE)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-07-17
Volume
104
Issue
29
Pages
12187-12192
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2088992072
Cited by
529
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 41
FWCI
12.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
conscious perception, somatosensory perception, medial thalamus, posterior cingulate cortex, temporoparietal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, pain perception, sustained attention, self-reflection, external monitoring
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Lasers, Male, Nervous System, Pain, Perception

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