Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inner experience in the scanner: can high fidelity apprehensions of inner experience be integrated with fMRI?

Kühn, Simone, Fernyhough, Charles, Alderson-Day, Benjamin, Hurlburt, Russell T.·2014·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01393PMC PMC4260673
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To provide full accounts of human experience and behavior, research in cognitive neuroscience must be linked to inner experience, but introspective reports of inner experience have often been found to be unreliable. The present case study aimed at providing proof of principle that introspection using one method, descriptive experience sampling (DES), can be reliably integrated with fMRI. A participant was trained in the DES method, followed by nine sessions of sampling within an MRI scanner. During moments where the DES interview revealed ongoing inner speaking, fMRI data reliably showed activation in classic speech processing areas including left inferior frontal gyrus. Further, the fMRI data validated the participant's DES observations of the experiential distinction between inner speaking and innerly hearing her own voice. These results highlight the precision and validity of the DES method as a technique of exploring inner experience and the utility of combining such methods with fMRI.

Overview

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01393

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 (A) Contrast of inner saying > fixation in a conventional neuroscientific mini-block design; (B) Contrast of verbal modality > all other modalities (visual, bodily, and auditory) as defined by DES; (C) Contrast of inner speaking > all other categories as defined by descriptive experience sampling (DES) 5 frequent phenomena (5FP); (D) Contrast of inner speaking > inner hearing of idiographic DES categories.
FIGURE 1 (A) Contrast of inner saying > fixation in a conventional neuroscientific mini-block design; (B) Contrast of verbal modality > all other modalities (visual, bodily, and auditory) as defined by DES; (C) Contrast of inner speaking > all other categories as defined by descriptive experience sampling (DES) 5 frequent phenomena (5FP); (D) Contrast of inner speaking > inner hearing of idiographic DES categories.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hurlburt, 2009, Sensory awareness., J. Conscious. Stud., 16, 231
  2. Singer, 1966, Daydreaming.
  3. Ward, 2000, Simultaneous Inference for FMRI Data. Afni Alphasim Documentation.

Cited by

See all 27

Metadata

Authors
Kühn, S., Fernyhough, C., Alderson-Day, B., & Hurlburt, R. T.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2014-12-09
Volume
5
ISSN
1664-1078
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01393
PMC
PMC4260673
Cited by
27
References
60

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.